Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[oremus1]

Perhaps this is your view of the vocation, but certainly not the Church's. 

 

Perhaps this is your way of expressing yourself, but it certainly isn't polite.

 

 

Here's just one example.  People who have not read basic Church documents ...

Here is just one example.

 

 

How about phrasing things differently?  There is really no need to be confrontational on every CV thread, is there?

[abrideofChrist]

Perhaps this is your way of expressing yourself, but it certainly isn't polite.

 

 

Here is just one example.

 

 

How about phrasing things differently?  There is really no need to be confrontational on every CV thread, is there?

 

 It is insulting to CVs to have their vocation described as a train wreck because some vocal CVs don't know enough about their own vocation but nevertheless pontificate on the matter.  There have been people who have given up on the vocation specifically because lies have been made about it by people who should know better.

Edited January 30, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[Aloysius]

This post is in the debate table rather than vocation station in order to allow for confrontational tones and debates over the issue. The tone of the debate table is not suitable for everyone. Feel free to report if the tone goes over into vocation station which should be a safe haven for exploring vocations without confrontations or debate.

[oremus1]

It's a thread about consecrated virginity... the vocation that the bishops revived without thinking everything through first and getting all the theological/canonical ducks in a row. So of course, train wreck.

 

 

 It is insulting to CVs to have their vocation described as a train wreck because some vocal CVs don't know enough about their own vocation but nevertheless pontificate on the matter.  There have been people who have given up on the vocation specifically because lies have been made about it by people who should know better.

 

Really? I'd actually be more interested in the vocation if i met CV who is truly joyful and radiates true love of Christ, who has a genuine desire to show charity, kindness and love toward others, and who actually strives towards true holiness - even if they were not well read or well qualified, because their life and disposition is a testimony to their vocation. If such a CV met a less educated or well read one, I am sure they would politely explain themselves. What would Our Lady do?

 

Unfortunately some CVs who are well educated, abuse that grace by taking every possible opportunity to be confrontational, to belittle, to be condescending or otherwise patronise others would actually put me off far more. I would wonder why they felt a need to be so horrible and be constantly putting everyone down, asserting how much more they know than everyone.

 

While they might know all the right documents in their head, it is self evident that such beautiful teachings are not in their heart.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-17

Edited January 30, 2014 by oremus1

[oremus1]

This post is in the debate table rather than vocation station in order to allow for confrontational tones and debates over the issue. The tone of the debate table is not suitable for everyone. Feel free to report if the tone goes over into vocation station which should be a safe haven for exploring vocations without confrontations or debate.

 

oh right i am definately in the wrong place, i shall head over to there thanks!

 

when i see religious / consecrated people being aggressive or confrontational to each other, it makes me sad :ohno:   

[abrideofChrist]

Oremus, all of the educated CVs I know are joyful, humble women.  I actually am happy you are contributing to the conversations on this vocation.  We don't necessarily see eye to eye on things, but I think it is because of a lack of common understanding of definitions than anything else.  I hope that you'll have a great consecration and bask in the beauty of this call.

[cmaD2006]

This post is in the debate table rather than vocation station in order to allow for confrontational tones and debates over the issue. The tone of the debate table is not suitable for everyone. Feel free to report if the tone goes over into vocation station which should be a safe haven for exploring vocations without confrontations or debate.

 

And for those reading this thread ... this is why I strongly suggested (in Vocation Station) that any continued discussions of the sort move here.  This sort of tone, while *not* allowed in Vocation Station, *is* allowed in Debate Table as long as it doesn't go over the top (into a personal attack, for example).

[Cecilia]

cmaD2006 and Aloysius, Thank you for the explanations. Maggie, Bienvenue à l'accident de train – (I assume you are joking in your comment…).  

 

God’s beloved, Intriguing comment about the comparison with religious profession. aBrideofChrist and Barbara Therese, Vita consecrata signifies greatly. Without it one is lost.

 

Oremus1, The consecrated virgins in the world that I know are kind women. – I do not know any that are cloistered.

[Cecilia]

From the British Province of Carmelite Friars – Some reflections on living a spirit of poverty.

 

http://www.carmelite.org/index.php?nuc=content&id=237

 

The Evangelical Counsels

All Christians are invited to practice the 'Evangelical Counsels' of poverty, chastity and obedience. Professed members of the Carmelite Family - that is those religious or laity who make a public statement of wanting to live the Carmelite way of life - make promises or vows to follow these Evangelical Counsels.

They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel ('evangelium' in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father. The evangelical counsels are a useful support in our pursuit of living - as the Carmelite Rule states - 'in allegiance to Jesus Christ'.

All Christians are called to live as Christ lived, and Carmelites profess to do this publicly through the evangelical counsels. The evangelical counsels are closely linked to the way of life of religious communities, because although people have been living the evangelical counsels since the time of Jesus it was not until the development of monastic and mendicant communities that these virtues were professed publicly with the swearing of a vow or promise. Vows of poverty, chastity and obedience are now taken in some form by all formal congregations and orders of religious in the Roman Catholic Church, and the counsels are regarded as the foundation of their conduct and way of life.

A universal invitation

However, the invitation to live poor, chaste and obedient is not restricted to religious and clergy. All Jesus’ followers are invited to adopt these principles in whatever way is appropriate to them. The evangelical counsels are recommended for all the baptised. Both the 1983 Code of Canon Law (§207 # 2) and the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church (§873) remind us that within both the clergy and the laity ‘there exist Christian faithful who are consecrated to God in their own special manner and serve the salvific mission of the Church through the profession of the evangelical counsels.’ The Catechism states that those who profess the evangelical counsels publicly within a permanent state of life recognised by the Church live a consecrated life. So it can be said that, even though they are not religious, in making the profession proper to the Carmelite Third Order, lay Carmelites consecrate their lives to God as a deepening of their baptismal commitment.

The 2003 Rule for the Third Order of Carmel also reminds lay Carmelites that they are invited in a special way to adopt poverty, chastity and obedience as part of their way of life:

The spirit of the evangelical counsels, common to all Christians, becomes for the Tertiaries a plan for life which touches the areas of power, of sensuality and of material goods. The vows are an ever greater demand not to serve false idols, but to attain that freedom of loving God and neighbour which is above all forms of egoism. Holiness lies in the fulfilment of this double command to love. (§13)

Poverty, chastity, and obedience are not ends in themselves; they are virtues we practice so as to conform more closely to Jesus Christ. By professing these counsels as a free choice, Carmelites become prophets in the heart of the Church, reminding all people by our dedication to Christ that God alone can set us free to be fully human and alive.

Poverty
Carmelites are invited to be poor in spirit and to follow the vision of Saint Albert’s Rule in sharing our resources. Carmelite religious live in material poverty, not claiming property as their own. Carmelite laity are not required to give up all possessions but are invited to live simply and in a spirit of poverty.

The virtues associated with poverty resonate with the contemplative core of the Carmelite charism. Poverty is closely linked to the Carmelite notion of vacare Deo; leaving space for God to act in our lives and trusting in God’s providence. Having a spirit of poverty allows us to make space for God and do away with false idols, since ‘you cannot serve both God and wealth’ (Luke 16:13). Ultimately only God, not things, will satisfy and save us. Material goods are tools given to us by God and are not bad in themselves, but possessions can come to possess us and enslave our hearts. Carmelites strive to live more simply, being not excessively concerned with material things.

Through poverty God gradually releases our hearts to love not only him, but also in solidarity those who have less than ourselves, physically and spiritually. By practising poverty we come to respect the created world of which we are stewards, and to be grateful for God’s bounty which is for all people. Embracing voluntary poverty condemns possession of the poor and the idolatry of wealth, and impels us to seek justice and peace.

 

[Cecilia]

If commentators dislike short posts longer ones are acceptable to me -- because the moderators have said this topic has less restrictions than the vocation station silo.

[Maggyie]

It's not that I think the vocation itself is a train wreck, but the modern experience of it certainly leaves a lot to be desired. There's little formal formation and not much official guidance on how this vocation is to be lived (no , treatises from learned theologians don't count as official).

I don't want to promote a stereotype but the younger women I've met in this vocation seem to have a healthier interaction with it. So many cv's are angry and rigid, almost brittle, like they are curled up in a fist. I'm sure this is a result of hurting from other Christians not understanding their call or treating them poorly, but it's not the right response, and not very bridal. The CVs get so little practical support from the Church , of course there are going to be problems.

I remember once reading a blog post linked on VS, and because the content specifically ran down other women and used the tone of a policewoman writing a ticket, I knew instantly: the writer must be a CV. It's really sad and I think in the cv community itself I think they realize this is a problem. I also don't want to be a negative nancy or discourage anyone, but it is what it is.

[abrideofChrist]

I don't want to promote a stereotype but the younger women I've met in this vocation seem to have a healthier interaction with it. So many cv's are angry and rigid, almost brittle, like they are curled up in a fist. I'm sure this is a result of hurting from other Christians not understanding their call or treating them poorly, but it's not the right response, and not very bridal. The CVs get so little practical support from the Church , of course there are going to be problems.
 

 

Please don't promote a stereotype.  Since its renewal in 1970, it would be fair to estimate that at least 4,000-5,000 women have become consecrated virgins.  If this rate of growth continues, consecrated virgins will be the single largest group of consecrated women in the Church within a century.  Many of the older women are beautiful souls.  The same goes for the younger.  They have a shared and deep love for the vocation chosen by the Holy Spirit for His Bride, the Virgin Mary.  Many are frustrated and angry with certain lies that are commonly spread about them or their vocation, but that does not negate the fact that they are still loving, gracious, humble, serving handmaids of the Lord.

 

I don't understand your stance on theological treatises.  The Church has a system for understanding the different branches of science:  theology, philosophy, and so on.  Most issues are addressed in these treatises because that is the ordinary way for the Church to develop and grow her understanding of things and her own praxis.  Each science has its own principles, methodology, and lexicon, so to speak.  When an official document is written, it is written in the language and customs of the disciplines it touches upon.  Things are said implicitly what don't need to be spelled out in detail because their significance should be caught by those who are trained in those disciplines, and the texts are also written so that the plain language should be sufficient for a basic understanding.  Many of the things we are to believe are not actually explicitly written in official church documents.  They are the logical developments in theology.  Other items are deliberately written so that it is clear that no universal legislation is going to be imposed because it is expected that the virtue of prudence is to be used in interpretation.  Because the Church does have this system in place and does formally train people in these sciences, she expects that these people also continue in the tradition of those sciences, so that they teach and interpret and grow the body of knowledge.

 

That was theoretical.  Let's go into the practical application.  A liturgist knows that the first thing one must do to understand the liturgy is to read it.  If things are unclear, one turns to older forms of the liturgy, commentaries on the liturgy, and any documents that shed light on the development of the liturgy.  In studying the Consecration Rite, the liturgist will note many things that may not be obvious to the casual reader that indicate the mens ecclesiae (the mind of the Church).  One virgin wants consecrated virgins to wear "distinctive dress" suggestive of a habit.  A liturgist, in examining this proposal, will look to the Rite.  The current 1970 Rite talks about the bridal insignia to be given to the virgin: veil, ring (and "customary" bridal insignia which means that local customs for designating brides should be taken into consideration and possibly adopted).  Anticipating the claim that bridal insignia simply means a "habit", the liturgist continues to dig deeper.  He discovers that the 1962 Rite, and the 1596 before it designated that "habits" were blessed in the Rite.  This habit blessing was dropped in the 1970 Rite.  Why would that be?  He turns to the official records of the coetus who formulated the 1970 Rite.  Because they decided to readmit women who were not sanctamoniales (nuns) who lived secular lives, they determined that it was not fitting for a woman in the world to be required to wear a habit.  Here again, other principles that are well known to theologians and others comes into play.  A privilege is often paired with an obligation.  The privilege of wearing a habit, which is given to the person by the Church is paired with the obligation to wear it.  The Church did not concede this privilege because the Church did not put in a blessing and wearing of habits section in the new 1970 Rite.  If this isn't enough to convince people that the Church did not intend virgins in the world to wear a habit, then the liturgist can invoke another principle.  A person's rights cannot be restricted except by the law.  This is in canon law, which liturgists have to be familiar with because it provides some of the principles for interpreting liturgical law which is in the liturgy.  The obligation to wear a habit is a restriction on a person's rights and freedom.  Such a law would have to be interpreted strictly whereas if there is no law, the widest possible latitude must be given to people.  This means that a consecrated virgin is free to wear whatever modest outfit she wishes because there is no law and no obligation to wear "distinctive dress".  The liturgist can turn his attention to "bridal" insignia if he wishes.  He will discover through his purusal of the Rites and the commentaries - many of them written by the same guys who wrote the Rites! - that the ceremony was written to parallel ordinations and marriage.  He learns that the reason why the new Rite removed the crown is because the marriage rites had discontinued giving the crown.  He also digs down deeper and learns that the veil is not supposed to be a nun-veil for women living in the world but a one time bridal veil.  Again, this he discovers because of the Rites, the commentaries (again, many of them written by the same men who wrote the Rites), and the theological treatises of the saints and scholars.  The liturgist doesn't have to turn to explicit passages in the Catechism or even in the instructions from the Vatican which require the Rite of marriage to be studied jointly with the Rite of Consecration of Virgins to know that his conclusion is right.  He is assured that he has taken the proper steps for interpretation, and that given the evidence, cannot come to any other conclusion.  The Church does not have to spell out the fact that consecrated virgins living in the world are not obligated to wear "distinctive dress" nor that she does not intend them to do so.  It is already there.  Americans, though, want everything to be written in legal writing in a way they understand to be law.  E.g.  "No virgins shall wear "distinctive dress" or a habit."  or "All virgins shall wear a habit."  They don't understand that this is not how the Church operates nor will she operate this way because there is no need.

[abrideofChrist]

Our hypothetical liturgist, can continue to examine the issue of a habit or distinctive dress on other grounds.  One of these grounds is a concept called "separation from the world".  It is something that properly belongs to religious and in a certain sense, to hermits.  It is on account of the "separation from the world" that religious are given habits from the Church.  It is a sign of their public lifestyle of following the evangelical counsels in a very distinctive way.  He looks to the theology of vows and realizes that religious have their framework for following those vows.  Secular Institues make the same vows and enter a public state of life, but their vows do not require them to live in "separation from the world".  This means, as Church documents show, that the vows by their very nature do not require "separation from the world".  This is why the Church does not in principle give habits to people in secular institutes.  Interestingly enough, the Church allows women in secular institutes to receive the consecration of virgins.  Our liturgist comes to the conclusion that the Church is emphatically pointing out that "distinctive dress" proper to religious women is not the expected dress for women living in the world.

[abrideofChrist]

Our liturgist can examine the claim that "distinctive dress" is necessary to show a person's public state of virginity.  Again, the liturgist can effectively show that the Church's understanding of public state is distinct from the concept of "separation from the world".  He can point out that one of the reasons that the Church gradually moved from weddings done at home was to emphasize the sacramental and public nature of the state of marriage.  A wedding ring is the customary sign of the bride's new state in life.  Following the ancient tradition that what is done at weddings is done in the consecration of virgins, the ring is the customary sign of the consecrated virgin's new state in life. 

[cruciatacara]

:crazy: There seems to be something not quite right with the CV vocation though because every time it's discussed on phatmass, it seems to turn into a catfight!

[BarbTherese]

I always thought of the religious sisters in habit as signifying one "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" especially when we used to see them so often around the place wherever one might be and probably pre V2 more than anything.  The problem back then was that religious sisters were formed (formation) to be totally rejecting of the world, rather than understanding themselves and their vocation as "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" contrary to nuns who were largely strictly enclosed and rarely seen except if out and about for some important or emergency reason.  This pre V2 understanding came to be experienced culturally generally as religious sisters having nothing to do at all with secular society - totally out of the world and not at all "for the world" in that they rejected it completely, just moved about in general society now and then.

 

I wonder if the religious habit per se itself has a stereotype?  And it was a backlash or knee jerk reaction to abandon and correct that stereotype by abandoning the habit altogether at least certainly in the main here in Australia and to make the statement, which existed anyway to my mind "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" by a lapel badge or perhaps a cross on a chain on secular clothing.

 

I wonder if the religious habit per se today has a stereotype and that it is exclusive for religious sisters and nuns alone.  If Rome wants it that way, it is fine by me.  But moving about in general society as I do in secular clothing, there is nothing at all to identify me to the sense of sight on the part of others that I am a practising and faithful Catholic, a follower of Jesus and His Gospel - and should there be such an identifying factor? Would it be helpful?............the same for Consecrated Virgins - some sort of identifying unique factor.

I used to wear a cross on a leather thong and this for me was trying to make a statement that the cross I wear is not worn for decorative jewellery, but means something far more and that I am a committed (Catholic) Christian.  My SD remarked one visit and jokingly actually, that it made me look like a religious sister (because religious sisters have adopted/'hijacked' (LOL) secular clothing).  I abandoned the cross because I do not want others to think I am a religious sister of any kind.  Mine is a different vocation in the laity.

 

Or is the vocation of CV (and those like me and in a different vocation to CV) to be the hidden leaven in the mix since there is nothing at all to identify vocation (which is intrinsically the person that we are) other than a wedding or commitment ring and these items are quite common in general society.  My thoughts are that as long as Rome insists the religious habit is for religious sisters and nuns only that we are to be hidden leaven.  That is how I am reading the current situation.

 

 

[BarbTherese]

.............edit............  The Church does not have to spell out the fact that consecrated virgins living in the world are not obligated to wear "distinctive dress" nor that she does not intend them to do so.  It is already there.  Americans, though, want everything to be written in legal writing in a way they understand to be law.  E.g.  "No virgins shall wear "distinctive dress" or a habit."  or "All virgins shall wear a habit."  They don't understand that this is not how the Church operates nor will she operate this way because there is no need.

 

Though I have edited out the greater part of your post, BoC, it did make very interesting reading and was informative - and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.  I think I understand myself now - but could I explain it? I very much doubt it.

 

Re the above and quoted from your post, however, by not clearly spelling things out and for those of us who are not educated in the various 'sciences' or 'schools', expertise (whatever the correct term might be), in Church matters (and this would probably apply to the greater majority of us quite everyday ordinary Catholics), do you think that things are left wide open for the ordinary Catholic to not understand at all, even to totally misunderstand.  Do you think in fact that there just might be a need?

[abrideofChrist]

Though I have edited out the greater part of your post, BoC, it did make very interesting reading and was informative - and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.  I think I understand myself now - but could I explain it? I very much doubt it.

 

Re the above and quoted from your post, however, by not clearly spelling things out and for those of us who are not educated in the various 'sciences' or 'schools', expertise (whatever the correct term might be), in Church matters (and this would probably apply to the greater majority of us quite everyday ordinary Catholics), do you think that things are left wide open for the ordinary Catholic to not understand at all, even to totally misunderstand.  Do you think in fact that there just might be a need?

 

The Rites contained in the Roman Pontifical presuppose sufficient information and formation for the recipients of those Rites.  The words of the Rite point to truths that are explained in greater detail elsewhere.  For example, the ceremony of ordination presupposes that the man being ordained knows about his vocation from formation.  The Church talks about the vocation in numerous papal documents, statements of the councils, the catechism, the code of canon law, and many theological works.  The most basic notion, though, is that a man who gets ordained is that he has been given powers to do things that the rest of the faithful can't do.  There are people who will go against all the documents and claim that women can be ordained because a statement to the contrary has never been pronounced "ex cathedra".  The Church does not see it necessary to state "ex cathedra that only a man can be ordained.  Only people with a persistent agenda who absolutely will not subject themselves to the normal teaching authority of the Church will ignore the preponderance of evidence that only a man can be ordained. 

 

This is the same situation we have for many contested areas of consecrated virginity.  Most of this could be avoided if people would simply read the Rites and follow them!  If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory to ordained only men and that despite the clear language of the Church want to have the ceremony for women, we wouldn't have the mess we are in.  If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory for the Church to consecrate women based in part on their virginity, we wouldn't have women wanting to change the word "virginity" to "chastity".  I can't emphasize this enough.  People would understand so much about the vocation by simply reading the Rite, word by word.  An unbiased observer who doesn't believe that religious life is the epitome and paradigm for consecrated life will be able to grasp the nature of the vocation from the Rite.  Trouble comes when people want to make it like religious life. 

Edited January 31, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I saw 2 types, CV and CVR. Can't married couples also take a vow of virginity ?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Also you talk of consecrated women aren't there any consecrated lay single men to the CV vocation of course there are in the CVR ? Also i only bring up the married thing because on ewtn i heard about a married couple who took a vow of chastity(the no sex chastity, not the one partner chastity and check your dictionaries if you don't know the difference) and the women in the CV marriage became a lay saint, an actual canonized saint.