Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[oremus1]

If a woman has sex and lies about it, that's her deal. But the difference is she actually had sex, not watched a rom-com and did the Tango.

No lillabeth was defining loss of virginity, and I was making the point that oral and lesbian relations are a form of sex but do not come into her definition.

[Cecilia]

abrideofChrist, What you have said about the notion of implicit vows  being nonsensical – signifies greatly. <<Implicit>> means something is not explicit – or not plainly expressed. A vow is the opposite – explicit – plainly and publicly expressed. It is impossible to have a plainly – and publicly – expressed vow that is not plainly and publicly expressed. This is absurd. If it is not those things – it is not a vow. A woman cannot be consecrated by an implicit vow -- this does not exist.

 

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

 

sponsaChristi, I do not see why you are upset – probably readers know we are commenting here to understand each other – readers will come to conclusions on their own. Probably you will want to answer some questions I asked – to comment with answers will help us to see your positions better. This will aid understanding – if you are concerned what people will think. I tried to help you – to show you it seemed you do not want to consider the Catechism – or other documents from the Church – if they do not fit with your thinking. If readers have this impression from you – this is not good – however you can comment here to explain better. That is the point. If you did not understand how you come across – it would not be good to let you go on unaware – you can spend time here to make your thoughts known.

 

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

 

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

 

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

[Cecilia]

To me it seems quite strange -- to comment about obedience -- yet to not follow documents from the Magisterium of the Church. A consecrated virgin in the world -- this woman must respectfully and humbly submit to the Church's teachings -- to educate herself where needed -- to learn and have openness to being corrected.

 

This signifies greatly -- it is good to be obedient first when it is required -- with the Church's teachings -- before deciding on other items for obedience -- to a bishop -- that are more like a religious sister than a consecrated virgin in the world. Probably it is better to put levels of obedience in good order -- to follow real matters before hypothesized ones.

[PhuturePriest]

To me it seems quite strange -- to comment about obedience -- yet to not follow documents from the Magisterium of the Church. A consecrated virgin in the world -- this woman must respectfully and humbly submit to the Church's teachings -- to educate herself where needed -- to learn and have openness to being corrected.

 

This signifies greatly -- it is good to be obedient first when it is required -- with the Church's teachings -- before deciding on other items for obedience -- to a bishop -- that are more like a religious sister than a consecrated virgin in the world. Probably it is better to put levels of obedience in good order -- to follow real matters before hypothesized ones.

 

Is what supposedly constitutes as a loss of virginity a matter of dogma?

[Cecilia]

futurepriest387, My comment is about obedience -- whether a consecrated virgin in the world should ask her bishop to guide her -- more like a superior in a religious order -- this is not  part of Chruch teaching. A bishop -- and a consecrated virgin in the world -- have a special rapport. The relationship is special -- however it does not take religious life as a pattern. The bishop does not have time -- or an obligation -- to direct the consecrated virgin in the world -- about what to wear, how to work, what ministry to have -- he will have opinions on her options -- but she does not have a vow of obedience to him -- he does not give her structure and payment and housing -- that is religious life. It is strange -- to not carefully read the Church's Magisterial documents or the Catechism on the vocation -- this is true obedience -- yet to decide other things about obedience that do not signify -- that a bishop should take a role the Church does not give him. This is strange.

 

 

[Maggyie]

abrideofChrist, What you have said about the notion of implicit vows being nonsensical – signifies greatly. <<Implicit>> means something is not explicit – or not plainly expressed. A vow is the opposite – explicit – plainly and publicly expressed. It is impossible to have a plainly – and publicly – expressed vow that is not plainly and publicly expressed. This is absurd. If it is not those things – it is not a vow. A woman cannot be consecrated by an implicit vow -- this does not exist.

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

sponsaChristi, I do not see why you are upset – probably readers know we are commenting here to understand each other – readers will come to conclusions on their own. Probably you will want to answer some questions I asked – to comment with answers will help us to see your positions better. This will aid understanding – if you are concerned what people will think. I tried to help you – to show you it seemed you do not want to consider the Catechism – or other documents from the Church – if they do not fit with your thinking. If readers have this impression from you – this is not good – however you can comment here to explain better. That is the point. If you did not understand how you come across – it would not be good to let you go on unaware – you can spend time here to make your thoughts known.

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

Just to address one part, though I don't want to go OT, the practice of priests marrying those who cohabitate is an excellent one and in fact a priest has no place denying the faithful their rights to this sacrament on that score. It's a Fundmentalist Protestant thing to try to punish people who sin in this way by denying them the medicine for their sin (which is holy matrimony).

[oremus1]

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

 

 

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

 

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

 

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

 

myself and Godbeloved are not saying it is right that our countries disregard church teaching, we are just trying to find out WHY and WHAT IS THE CORRECT teaching
 

Is what supposedly constitutes as a loss of virginity a matter of dogma?

 

My point too. I want to know what the 'theological definition' of virginity is, and the meaning of "living in a public or open violation of chastity". i really dont think it means watching MTV or hugging.

futurepriest387, My comment is about obedience -- whether a consecrated virgin in the world should ask her bishop to guide her -- more like a superior in a religious order -- this is not  part of Chruch teaching. A bishop -- and a consecrated virgin in the world -- have a special rapport. The relationship is special -- however it does not take religious life as a pattern. The bishop does not have time -- or an obligation -- to direct the consecrated virgin in the world -- about what to wear, how to work, what ministry to have -- he will have opinions on her options -- but she does not have a vow of obedience to him -- he does not give her structure and payment and housing -- that is religious life. It is strange -- to not carefully read the Church's Magisterial documents or the Catechism on the vocation -- this is true obedience -- yet to decide other things about obedience that do not signify -- that a bishop should take a role the Church does not give him. This is strange.

It is strange that you should make such a comment without directing it to the person to whom you are responding. if you are not responding to any post on this threat, it is a strange comment to make. no-one is saying a bishop should like a religious superior. however i am interested to know what happens at the meetings between the CV and the bishop beause in my country we do not have any thing like that after consecration.what sort of things do you talk about? and yes, my question is rooted in church teaching. ever heard of apostolorum successores?

[Cecilia]

Maggie, Thank you. It is improper -- for a priest to refuse the sacrament of marriage -- as a <<punishment>> for behavior he does not approve of -- however it is appropriate for him to refuse the sacrament to couples who refuse to accept the Church's teachings on marriage. The priest may refuse to marry a couple -- for many reasons -- if they refuse to be open to having children -- refuse to agree to be monogamous in their marriage -- refuse to acknowledge the santicty of sex. A couple who lives together -- and seeks marriage in the Church -- is catechized -- receives confession -- lives like brother & sister in same household that is already established -- until marriage. This is fine. The sacraments do not come out of vending machines -- they are not open to anyone who wants them. A Catholic cannot say -- I must have this because I want it. A Catholic has to demonstrate belief in the Church -- adherence to her teachings.

[Cecilia]

Thank you, oremus1. Yes, in pages back, comments like this were made by someone about a consecrated virgin having obligations in obedience to her bishop. I do not believe it was you. It is difficult -- to read so many pages at once -- and to keep track. This is why I did not put a name on it. I did not want to make a mistake -- to address someone who did not make it. I made a general comment -- instead. Yet I addressed futurepriest because he addressed me before that.

 

When you comment about you and God's beloved -- and your countries -- I see. I thought you both commented that you are not looking at the Church's teachings. Later I will try to find the page -- my eyes become tired. Possibly I misread.

[Cecilia]

I was seeing page 9:

 

God's beloved, "Putting all the facts together , I think CV researchers should not depend on church documents to understand the vocation."

 

oremus1, "I also agree with the person who posted that we cannot depend on current documents to understand the vocation. we must look to the history, IN DETAIL. there we can find things like."

 

History signfies -- however if a current Church document gives details that go against a historical custom -- in the vocation -- the Church document is what signifies more. In early Church history it is difficult to know the difference -- between the propositum and what are vows today -- monastic and relgious vocations grew out of the consecrated virgins. There will be overlap -- in early history. This will be confusing -- if we do not look to current Church teaching for answers. This is what I mean. We must put the Catechism and other items first. If the Catechism says the woman is consecrated by the bishop in the prayer of consecration -- it is not correct to say she is really consecrated by implicit vows instead of by the bishop. This is what sponsa Christi has said. Even if early women -- possibly made a vow with a consecration pray -- today it is different. We have to read Church teaching to know the vocation today. If we read the Catechism on the vocation -- there is no confusion.

[Cecilia]

p. 10 from sponsa Christi, "

 

I do think that consecrated virgins are called to live in a spirit of evangelical obedience, just as they are called to live in a spirit of poverty. Though naturally, this is going to be expressed in a different way than a religious vow of obedience properly so-called. 

 

My thought right now is that evangelical obedience for CVs should be expressed in terms of a sincere willingness to put the needs of the Church about your own personal desires and preferences, and also to a sincere docility towards the direction of your bishop (theoretically at least---obviously, this is a bit of a challenge if you have no real contact with the bishop!)

 

I don't think this willingness to listen to your bishop would necessarily be one-directional as a religious' obedience to his or her superior would be, but I believe that consecrated virgins should be willing to be guided by their bishops in a serious and meaningful way. I think this kind of relationship with the bishop is what is envisioned in the Rite and in the other pertinent documents."

 

 

All faithful -- all consecrated persons especially -- live the spirit of the evangelical counsels. A consecrated virgin is docile to her bishop -- to some degree -- however he must be docile to the Holy Spirit, who is her guide. To speak of a consecrated virgin's docility to her bishop -- we must be careful -- when there is no formal arrangement for her. The consecrated virgin should be humble -- and generous -- but she cannot expect the bishop to plan her life. He will be fatherly -- have insights -- but they must pray and discuss together. He is not a superior -- he has no obligation to plan her life -- to give her detailed input. She has no obligation to follow his preferences for her life, unless they both agree on items. That is all -- there cannot be obligations without duties and benefits. One who has an obligation of obedience -- also is supported in ways -- has benefits.

 

It is strange to hypothesize about obedience in matters to a bishop -- when he has no obligation to give detailed guidance -- but to not have obedience to the Church's Catechism on how a virgin is consecrated. To say she is not consecrated by the bishop but by implicit vows. This contradicts the Catechism. I have given quotes -- in pages back. I do not believe sponsa Christi intends this. But it gives this impression. To decide to be obedient in a way that is not part of the vocation -- to speak of being docile to a bishop deciding you have a certain job -- but to not be docile to the Catechism's teachings. This is the impression -- that is why I commented that it is good for sponsa Christi to be here to explain -- it will help us understand what she means when impressions are unfavorable.

[oremus1]

I was seeing page 9:

 

God's beloved, "Putting all the facts together , I think CV researchers should not depend on church documents to understand the vocation."

 

oremus1, "I also agree with the person who posted that we cannot depend on current documents to understand the vocation. we must look to the history, IN DETAIL. there we can find things like."

 

History signfies -- however if a current Church document gives details that go against a historical custom -- in the vocation -- the Church document is what signifies more. In early Church history it is difficult to know the difference -- between the propositum and what are vows today -- monastic and relgious vocations grew out of the consecrated virgins. There will be overlap -- in early history. This will be confusing -- if we do not look to current Church teaching for answers. This is what I mean. We must put the Catechism and other items first. If the Catechism says the woman is consecrated by the bishop in the prayer of consecration -- it is not correct to say she is really consecrated by implicit vows instead of by the bishop. This is what sponsa Christi has said. Even if early women -- possibly made a vow with a consecration pray -- today it is different. We have to read Church teaching to know the vocation today. If we read the Catechism on the vocation -- there is no confusion.

Cecilia, you have taken my comment out of context and have insinuiated I am inciting disobedience to the magisterium. this is incorrect and highly inapproproate.

 

 If i remember rightly, this was with regards to delegation to priests. At present, there are no documents of the magisterium which clearly spell out "this Rite is not allowed to be delegated to a priest". however, if you go back in history, in the early church, i think from around 3rd centry, there were LAWS prohibiting the consecration from being delegated to a priest. thus when we see in the current Ceremoniale Episcoporum that "a bishop may delegate to another bishop to perform the consecration", referring to current church documents alone, a bishop might rightly conclude that no explicit prohibition exists. But it is only looking historically that we can see there was a long tradition of it being reserved only to Bishops, and at one point in time, to the Pope. So we correctly should interpret this in accordance of what the practice always has been.
There are so few current documents of the magisterium referring explicitly to this vocation and interpretation of the Rite, that we cannot depend on them alone. So many CVs do not even understand the symbolism of the insignia properly. Or make the mistake of seeing the dearth of documents on the CV vocation, and simply amagamating CVs with religious. this is a mistake. they are two seperate vocations.

 

as there are so few church documents explicitly talking about this vocation, we cannot depend only on them ALONE.

[oremus1]

p. 10 from sponsa Christi, "

 

I do think that consecrated virgins are called to live in a spirit of evangelical obedience, just as they are called to live in a spirit of poverty. Though naturally, this is going to be expressed in a different way than a religious vow of obedience properly so-called. 

 

My thought right now is that evangelical obedience for CVs should be expressed in terms of a sincere willingness to put the needs of the Church about your own personal desires and preferences, and also to a sincere docility towards the direction of your bishop (theoretically at least---obviously, this is a bit of a challenge if you have no real contact with the bishop!)

 

I don't think this willingness to listen to your bishop would necessarily be one-directional as a religious' obedience to his or her superior would be, but I believe that consecrated virgins should be willing to be guided by their bishops in a serious and meaningful way. I think this kind of relationship with the bishop is what is envisioned in the Rite and in the other pertinent documents."

 

 

All faithful -- all consecrated persons especially -- live the spirit of the evangelical counsels. A consecrated virgin is docile to her bishop -- to some degree -- however he must be docile to the Holy Spirit, who is her guide. To speak of a consecrated virgin's docility to her bishop -- we must be careful -- when there is no formal arrangement for her. The consecrated virgin should be humble -- and generous -- but she cannot expect the bishop to plan her life. He will be fatherly -- have insights -- but they must pray and discuss together. He is not a superior -- he has no obligation to plan her life -- to give her detailed input. She has no obligation to follow his preferences for her life, unless they both agree on items. That is all -- there cannot be obligations without duties and benefits. One who has an obligation of obedience -- also is supported in ways -- has benefits.

 

It is strange to hypothesize about obedience in matters to a bishop -- when he has no obligation to give detailed guidance -- but to not have obedience to the Church's Catechism on how a virgin is consecrated. To say she is not consecrated by the bishop but by implicit vows. This contradicts the Catechism. I have given quotes -- in pages back. I do not believe sponsa Christi intends this. But it gives this impression. To decide to be obedient in a way that is not part of the vocation -- to speak of being docile to a bishop deciding you have a certain job -- but to not be docile to the Catechism's teachings. This is the impression -- that is why I commented that it is good for sponsa Christi to be here to explain -- it will help us understand what she means when impressions are unfavorable.

how is sponsa's idea disobedient to the catechism?
while i disagree with her ideas being applicable to all CVs (that one should wear distinctive garb, have religious-like obedience to the bishop, should never move away from her diocese in her life, should only work for the church etc), perhaps they work for her in her own specific circumstances and her relationship with her bishop.

[Cecilia]

oremus1, I do not understand the current contentious posts here. I did not imply that you are disobedient -- and inciting disobedience. Why do you say this? I told you possibly I misread your comment -- I gave you the comment -- so you could see what I am referring to. I showed you the comment I saw from you -- that made me question your comment. I have not questioned your loyalty to the Church.

 

For sponsa Christi, I have not questioned her loyalty to the Church. I have said an impression is given -- I did not say it is disboedience. It is an impression. That language is intended to be gentle. I was explicit -- to say she gave an impression -- to not say she has a certain attitude. I cannot say more than this -- yet I will give my comments and observations even if they are not appreciated. I do not understand why this topic has become upsetting -- since I have been away. Why? Why is it this way? Why are people upsetting -- and take things personally? I do not understand.

 

For sponsa Christi to deny that the consecrated virgin is consecrated by the bishop in a prayer -- she has done this several pages back -- I have given many quotes from her and the Catechism -- and instead say the consecrated virgin is consecration by <<implicit vows>> -- for her to say this gives the <<impression>> of preferring her own position to the Catechism. I have asked her to explain her position -- because it seems strange to speak of docility to the Church -- yet to not respect certain texts. I am open to explanation -- to hear and understand. But I cannot understand what is not explained to me.

 

Possibly tempers here flare? I have been away -- I do not understand. Can we not dialogue with each other without having hurt feelings? I do not understand. I have not accused you. I gave comments -- observations -- to understand you better. How else will we share ideas?

[Cecilia]

For myself, I would appreciate fairness. When I try to be exact -- to give texts -- to ask specific question -- to ask for clarification. I ask for this to be respected. I gave examples -- the Catechism says these things --  I gave many quotes -- I said, sponsa Christi, you have said the opposite, and I have quoted her -- and I asked sponsa Christi, how do you reconcile the two -- your position versus the Catechism? I ask a question in good faith. I point out the impression that is given -- a bad impression -- that she seems not to intend to give. I did this again -- with sponsa Christi's position that women in secular institutes are not fully consecrated -- versus the Church's teachings that they are entirely consecrated. I have not received an explanation from sponsa Christi regarding how she can keep her position. To ask this question is to accuse nothing -- it is an attempt at dialgoue. I have tried hard -- to provide quotes -- but these are not addressed. I cannot do more. I give a quote, the Church teaches <<this>> -- I give the document -- I give the quote. sponsa Christi's position is the opposite. I ask her to explain. She does not. Possibly she will when she has time. I assume her good disposition -- however I ask logical questions. It is appropriate to do so.

 

Then I am accused of saying she is disobedient. This is unfair. I cannot be more than precise and ask questions to understand others's positions. However the readers will make up their own minds -- none of us can provide explanations for another that she decides not to give -- but for myself, I do ask for fairness and respect. I provided many texts -- many documents -- many comments -- and I asked many questions that have not been answered. They are ignored -- then I am accused of things have not done. This is not fair.

 

I have been away -- I have been working extra shifts for my ill coworker. I do not know if this topic is worth it. It seems that people are fighting with each other -- what is the point of that? Sad and strange. I have received several messages -- from those who are confused by sponsa Christi's positions. I cannot provide explanations. I would like to know the explanations-- so we can move forward -- share ideas -- grow together. But I cannot do this alone. I do not understand why I spend time -- research -- write -- give quotations -- ask questions -- and this is taken as if I intend to be unkind -- accusatory.

 

 

[Cecilia]

Possibly my quotations and questions have become lost -- in the many pages this thread has become. I will find them -- and post them again. So the questions I have -- and the explanations I have requested -- are clear.

[Cecilia]

On February 7, 2014, page 7, I put this quote from sponsa Christi – versus the position of the Church – and asked for an explanation – she has not given an explanation for why her position could be correct when it does not match the Church's teaching.

 

My -- Cecilia's -- past comment and questions:

 

Sponsa Christi, I will put another quote from you below --

 

 Quote from sponsa Christi-- " I think (though admittedly, I’m not 100% sure on this point) that this implicit commitment to the counsels was the reason that consecrated virginity was actually allowed to be classified as “consecrated life” in the first place."

 

Comment and questions from me – Cecilia – that have not been addressed--

 

I do not understand how you can say this – the decree of promulgation of the Rite from the Vatican answered your question – I put this quote already in the thread – at the beginning.

 

 The revised Rite of Consecration of Virgins for Women Living in the World was published by the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship on 31 May 1970, after having been formally decreed by the Second Vatican Council. The decree of promulgation explains the development of this venerable and ancient rite in this way:

 The rite for the consecration of virgins is one of the most treasured in the Roman liturgy. Consecrated virginity is among the most excellent gifts bequeathed by our Lord to his Bride, the Church. From apostolic times women have dedicated their virginity to God, so adding to the beauty of the mystical body of Christ and making it fruitful in grace. Even from earliest times, as the Fathers of the Church bear witness, mother Church in her wisdom set her seal on this high vocation by her practice of consecrating those who followed it by means of a solemn prayer. This prayer, enriched in the course of time by other ritual elements to bring out more clearly the symbolism of virginity in relation to the Church, the bride of Christ, was incorporated into the Roman Pontifical. [Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 62] (1970).

 

 This is indisputable -- <<implicit commitment>> to the evangelical counsels is  not  the reason why the Vatican allowed consecrated virginity to be classified as  <<consecrated life>> in the first place. The Magisterium spells it out. There is no ambiguity – the woman is consecrated by the Church -- by means of a solemn prayer. Consecrated virginity belongs to consecrated life because the Church consecrates the woman by means of a solemn prayer. I do not understand why you question this – the Church’s teaching on how a woman comes to be consecrated could not be made more explicit. It is not – as you suggest – through <<implied>> evangelical counsels. I do not understand why you prefer your own hypothesis – over and against what the Vatican’s decree states.

[Cecilia]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

923   â€œVirgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.”⁴⁶⁴By this solemn rite (Consecratio Virginum), the virgin is “constituted... a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come.”⁴⁶⁵ (1537, 1672)

[Cecilia]

February 8, 2014, page 8 – I posted these questions and quotes from the Catechism – I have received no response—

 

My – Cecilia’s – original post--

 

Sponsa Christi, Thank you for the effort you give to comment – however your answers bring questions yet. I do not understand how you prove your positions still. You quoted #944 in the Catechism – but you do not address the entire chapter it accompanies. #944 is one of the summary sentences – at the end of the long chapter on consecrated life.

 

If the entire chapter is read – it is evident that #944 is a summary sentence that applies to religious life – even though it says consecrated life in the sentence. It is evident the sentence uses <<consecrated life>> loosely. This is indisputable and based on a reading of the chapter as a whole – this entire chapter of the Catechism is devoted to teaching the faithful how forms of consecrated life vary – how the public profession of evangelical counsels is one way – among several – of how persons are consecrated. Indisputably all consecrated persons are called to live the spirit of the evangelical counsels – in different ways -- however not all are consecrated by means of publicly professing the counsels. Respectfully -- you cannot decide to use the sentence from #944 out of context and be reputable in your position – how do you answer the Church’s teaching in that chapter on consecrated life? I will put items from the Catechism below.

 

 

You quoted only this --

 

944   The life consecrated to God is characterized by the public profession of the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in a stable state of life recognized by the Church.

 

 

You did not quote any of this from the Catechism --

 

Consecrated virgins and widows

 

923   â€œVirgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church.”⁴⁶⁴By this solemn rite (Consecratio Virginum), the virgin is “constituted... a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church’s love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come.”⁴⁶⁵ (1537, 1672)

 

Religious life

 

925   Religious life was born in the East during the first centuries of Christianity. Lived within institutes canonically erected by the Church, it is distinguished from other forms of consecrated life by its liturgical character, public profession of the evangelical counsels, fraternal life led in common, and witness given to the union of Christ with the Church.⁴⁶⁸ (1672)

 

Secular institutes

 

928   â€œA secular institute is an institute of consecrated life in which the Christian faithful living in the world strive for the perfection of charity and work for the sanctification of the world especially from within.”⁴⁷²

 

929   By a “life perfectly and entirely consecrated to [such] sanctification,” the members of these institutes share in the Church’s task of evangelization, “in the world and from within the world,” where their presence acts as “leaven in the world.”⁴⁷³ “Their witness of a Christian life” aims “to order temporal things according to God and inform the world with the power of the gospel.” They commit themselves to the evangelical counsels by sacred bonds and observe among themselves the communion and fellowship appropriate to their “particular secular way of life.”⁴⁷⁴ (901)

 

Various forms of sacramentals

 

1671    Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father “with every spiritual blessing.”¹⁷⁷ This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ. (1078)

 

1672    Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use. Among those blessings which are intended for persons—not to be confused with sacramental ordination—are the blessing of the abbot or abbess of a monastery, the consecration of virgins and widows, the rite of religious profession and the blessing of certain ministries of the Church (readers, acolytes, catechists, etc.). The dedication or blessing of a church or an altar, the blessing of holy oils, vessels, and vestments, bells, etc., can be mentioned as examples of blessings that concern objects. (923, 925, 903)

 

I will put comments in another post – so it is not too long here.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2014 by Cecilia

[Cecilia]

February 8, 2014, page 8, items to which I have received no response --

 

Sponsa Christi, there is a logical problem with your positions still. If you decide to use #944 out of context – to decide that secular institutes are not completely <<consecrated life>> because the explicit commitment – given by members of secular institutes -- to the evangelical counsels is not public – then you must also decide – to be logical – that consecrated virgins are also not <<completely consecrated>>. Consecrated virgins become consecrated in a liturgy – a liturgy is public – and are consecrated by the Church. They are not consecrated by the public profession of the evangelical counsels.

 

If you want to use #944 in the Catechism as your only authority – and disregard the other Catechism teachings above – then you must conclude consecrated virgins are not really in the consecrated life. You want to say consecrated virgins <<implicitly>> vow the evangelical counsels publicly – however this is only the fruit of your own hopes and ideals. Respectfully – your position denies Church teaching on how a consecrated virgin is consecrated. Your position also denies Church teaching – from the Catechism above – that religious differ from all other forms of religious life in being consecrated by public vows – and that consecrated virgins are consecrated via a solemn liturgical right. Your position also denies Church teaching – from the Catechism above – that people in secular institutes are entirely consecrated – because they <<commit themselves to the evangelical counsels by sacred bonds>> -- that is the quote from the Catechism.

 

I do not understand why you refuse to consider what the Church teaches - each answer you give in this topic is more confusing. You comment with your hopes and ideals for this vocation – instead of what the Church teaches. I ask questions – trying to understand you – then you neglect to provide authoritative sources or else you disregard them – this is seen in the above where you quote a sentence – out of context – from the Catechism and disregard the teachings in the rest of it.  I do not understand this. Our vocation is superb. It does not need to be <<religious>> in order to signify.

 

One more – you say often that <<scholars>> do not agree on a point -- or <<some scholars think>> this or that – but you never provide scholars to support your hopes and ideals – why? Why do you use comments that <<scholars>> have various opinions – but you do not quote their scholarship to demonstrate this? There is no debate – as you say there is – in the Church – about whether secular institutes really belong to consecrated life. Canon law – and the Catechism – and other Magisterial documents often from Congregations devoted to these topics -- teach about them as part of consecrated life.

 

You say that <<theologians and canonists>> debate this – but you provide nothing to demonstrate it. You say <<secular institutes>> are too different from other forms of consecrated life to be fully consecrated – but you are using your own categories to decide this – you are not using the Church’s categories. There is nothing the Church teaches that says lay persons cannot be consecrated. By including secular institutes in her teaching on consecrated life – the Church teaches the opposite of what you are saying – that lay persons can be consecrated. How do you disregard the fact that the Church always places secular institutes within her categories of consecrated life?

 

The more you comment on your positions – the more confused I am. You want to say unless a member of a secular institute publicly commits to evangelical counsels – he or she is not really consecrated. You disregard the direct quotation from the Catechism – that the life of people in secular institutes is entirely consecrated. You want to say a consecrated virgin is consecrated by publicly vowing the evangelical counsels – in order to say this you have to say this is <<implied>> in the Rite – because it is not really there. How confusing. It is not really there – because the consecrated virgin in the world is not consecrated by public vows – she is consecrated by the solemn Rite. The Catechism teaches this. The Catechism teaches the religious is consecrated differently from all other consecrated persons – by publicly vowing the evangelical counsels. I do not understand why you ignore all of this. Blessings to you.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2014 by Cecilia