Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Another question --what do you think regarding diocesan priests and poverty – they do not take a vow of poverty. In order to live the vocation radically – do you think a diocesan priest should have specific clothes besides his clerics – should he wear sweaters, socks, coats that are only dark colors? Grey, black, brown…  Should a diocesan priest report to his bishop how he will live like Christ in a spirit of poverty – is this ideal? Should he not spend more than a certain amount of money on a watch or shoes? Are there self-imposed norms that a diocesan priest should follow that would make him worthy of praise – of a praise greater than diocesan priests who neglect such self-imposed norms? Can we say that all diocesan priests should – ideally -- aim to only have a pair of boots, a pair of dress shoes, and a pair of tennis shoes? That anything they buy should be plain and inexpensive and simple? Should he not spend money on a cap or sweatshirt with a sports logo on it – this might be considered frivolous and unnecessary? Should he only get his hair cut so many times a year?

 

There is nowhere in Church teaching that outlines these things – or restricts diocesan priests in these decisions – however, do you believe to be radically holy and to really live like Christ in a spirit of poverty a diocesan priest should restrict himself in these kinds of ways? If so -- should he wear a symbol that shows the world he takes the spirit of poverty radically seriously – in order to be a witness to others? Possibly might he adopt wearing a rosary from his belt as a witness to others -- to show everyone that he lives radically the spirit of evangelical poverty?

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

How do you explain your comment that the Church’s teaching --in #9, bolded -- only applies to 95% of secular institutes? – I do not think this can be justified – I do not think we can choose what in Magisterial documents we will abide by and what we will explain away and disregard. Do you see why your 95% comment gives this impression – that if some secular institutes would rather live their vocation as religious institutes – found in #10 – then they are free to do so? They are free to disregard an authoritative teaching from the Magisterium?

 

I really wasn't trying to state an opinion on what secular institutes should or should not do. I was only observing that at least a small handful of lay secular institute members do wear some sort of distinctive clothing at least some of the time. Although I would agree that this is very unusual for secular institutes, presumably it is something which would be included in these communities' constitutions, which are approved by the Church. I certainly wasn't trying to argue that secular institutes can disregard explicit directives of the magisterium.

 

In any case, for a bit of context, "Essential Elements" was written as an attempt to correct some of the misinterpretations of the nature of religious life which were occurring in the decades after Vatican II. I.e., this document was really intended to provided directives to religious specifically. It does mention secular institutes briefly, but this is only to provide a background with which to contrast religious life. In other words, while this document gave a very brief and general description of secular institutes, it was not written for the purpose of providing directives to them.

 

Also, I do want to highlight again that "Essential Elements" does not mention consecrated virgins at all. So while this document might still provide us with some helpful insights for understanding consecrated life in general, it cannot be read as actually providing norms for consecrated virgins' way of life.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Possibly you are mixed up on the nature of Magisterial documents – respectfully -- you cannot pick and choose how you will apply the teachings in a Magisterial document. Possibly you do not understand the impression this gives -- that you are willing to accept only those items that support your hopes for various vocations. I do not think a theologian or other expert would comment and say a Magisterial document that clarifies religious life -- and does so by teaching the faithful how religious institutes differ from secular institutes -- is not really teaching anything about secular institutes. The document is giving directives for both forms of vocations. Do you have a spiritual director or your bishop that you could pose your interpretation to -- probably seeking their advice would assist in understanding these Church teachings... – I suggest this because you are confident in your interpretation that the document does not give directives to secular institutes – but this interpretation is not justified. Possibly you could ask this question in the scholar section of the forum?

To address the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world -- we cannot disregard the Church's teaching on secular institutes -- when these members may receive the consecration. The Church's teaching on secular institutes will aid us -- authoritatively -- in understanding the virginal consecration. This does not mean the vocation to consecrated virginity in the world can only be understood in terms of secular institutes -- however it means that we cannot disregard secular institutes when that vocation is permitted to subsist in conjunction with the virginal consecration. Oremus1 comments that a consecrated virgin in the world may live her vocation less like leaven -- this may fit her vocation as Christ's spouse -- however she is also entirely permitted to live it like leaven -- she is permitted to live it either way. The Church's teaching on secular institutes -- and the fact that members of institutes may be consecrated -- makes this obvious.

[oremus1]

I dont understand how a member of a secular institute can be consecrated by entry into their secular insitiute, then also recieve the consecration of virgins. similarly a religious, whom some bloggers like Stillsong Hermatige, consider to be consecrated by virtue of their religious profession, can additionally recieve the consecration of virigns. Surely you can only be consecrated once?? and you either ARE a consecrated person or not?

Edited February 3, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

I commented above with the quotations #9 and #10 from the << SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND FOR SECULAR INSTITUTES: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AS APPLIED TO INSTITUTES DEDICATED TO WORKS OF THE APOSTOLATE>>.

 

The below is the conclusion of that document --

 

These norms, based on traditional teaching, the revised Code of Canon Law and current praxis, do not exhaust the Church's provision for religious life. They indicate, however, her genuine concern that the life lived by institutes dedicated to works of the apostolate should develop ever more richly as a gift of God to the Church and to the human family. In drawing up this text, which the Holy Father has approved, the Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes wishes to help those institutes to assimilate the Church's revised provision for them and to put it in its doctrinal context. May they find in it a firm encouragement to the closer following of Christ in hope and joy in their consecrated lives.

 

From the Vatican, on the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 31 May 1983.

 

#9 – the paragraph with the directives for secular institutes – is part of the norms set forth in this teaching document. The document gives many directives for religious institutes – with some directives for secular institutes – in order to teach the differences between the two.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Do you have comments on the public witness and eschatological icon items you asked me -- to which I responded? God's Beloved, your comments about the consecrated virgin in the world being both a daughter to her bishop and a mother to all -- especially the needy -- are profound.

[Sponsa-Christi]

by advocating the wearing of distinctive garb, the requirement to work full time for the church (rather than, say, an accountant or firefighter), a fixed horarium, in that the CV's life will be 'visibly' consecrated, perhaps actually sponsa is in favour of CV being bestowed on members of apostolic religious sisters, and perhaps she would have preferred this?

 

 

Right now, I really don’t have an opinion as to whether or not apostolic religious Sisters should be able to receive the consecration of virgins. However, even if this was permitted, it still doesn’t mean that I would have become a Sister instead of a CV!

 

I do think that, under ordinary circumstances, CVs should dedicate their lives to the direct service of the Church, that we should be a visible public witness, that we should live in a spirit of evangelical poverty, etc.  (Though I’ve never thought that we should have a fixed horarium, and I’m not sure where this idea came from.) But even if all CVs did do all these things, to me the vocation of consecrated virginity would still be very different and distinct from apostolic religious life. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, Another question --what do you think regarding diocesan priests and poverty – they do not take a vow of poverty. In order to live the vocation radically – do you think a diocesan priest should have specific clothes besides his clerics – should he wear sweaters, socks, coats that are only dark colors? Grey, black, brown…  Should a diocesan priest report to his bishop how he will live like Christ in a spirit of poverty – is this ideal? Should he not spend more than a certain amount of money on a watch or shoes? Are there self-imposed norms that a diocesan priest should follow that would make him worthy of praise – of a praise greater than diocesan priests who neglect such self-imposed norms? Can we say that all diocesan priests should – ideally -- aim to only have a pair of boots, a pair of dress shoes, and a pair of tennis shoes? That anything they buy should be plain and inexpensive and simple? Should he not spend money on a cap or sweatshirt with a sports logo on it – this might be considered frivolous and unnecessary? Should he only get his hair cut so many times a year?

 

There is nowhere in Church teaching that outlines these things – or restricts diocesan priests in these decisions – however, do you believe to be radically holy and to really live like Christ in a spirit of poverty a diocesan priest should restrict himself in these kinds of ways? If so -- should he wear a symbol that shows the world he takes the spirit of poverty radically seriously – in order to be a witness to others? Possibly might he adopt wearing a rosary from his belt as a witness to others -- to show everyone that he lives radically the spirit of evangelical poverty?

 

I do think that diocesan priests should live in a spirit of evangelical poverty, as per canon 282 §1: “Clerics are to foster simplicity of life and are to refrain from all things that have a semblance of vanity.”

 

And yes, if a diocesan priest does have the occasion to discuss his efforts to live this simplicity of life with his bishop, then I think this would be wonderful!

 

Diocesan priests do wear a symbol of their commitment to the spirit of evangelical poverty—their clerical garb, which is also required in canon law.

 

Since I do understand that diocesan priests with the same vocation often exercise their ministry in very different contexts and circumstances, I wouldn’t try to invent a system of material, concrete rules about precisely what diocesan priest should and should not buy or own.  But I’m not trying to do this with consecrated virgins, either!

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, Possibly you confuse publicly identify with public witness. In baptism – and our baptismal promises – all the faithful commit to follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospel and to be a sign of the Kingdom to come. This is the nature of being a baptized Christian. Christians witness Christ to the world. Married couples enter a public status in the Church when they marry. They do so even though a liturgy is not required for the sacrament to take place – and so they may enter a public vocation without having a liturgy. This means there is not necessarily a direct correlation between a public vocation and a public liturgy as you hope. Members of secular institutes – while leaven in the world – are witnesses to the Kingdom. In fact they commit to follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospel <<more explicitly>> than a consecrated virgin in the world – because they are consecrated by promising the evangelical counsels.

 

While not all public states in the Church are necessarily liturgical, all liturgical vocations are public. Liturgy, and the results of liturgy, are never private. So there is a direct correlation in that way.

 

(And even in cases like a secret marriage—which is rarely permitted, by the way—and clandestine bishops, the Church doesn’t regard this “hiddenness” as ordinary or desirable.)

 

It is true that all the baptized and all called to be a Christian witness, but consecrated persons in general are called to do this in a much more radical way. When consecrated virgins promise to be a sign and witness at their consecration, they must be promising something “more” than what they were already committed to at baptism, because you can’t make a promise to do something which you are already bound to do.

 

Also, many canonists do see the mention of consecrated virgins’ stated resolve during the Rite to “follow Christ in the spirit of the Gospels,” as well as can. 604 describing consecrated virgins as “expressing  the holy resolution of following Christ more closely,” to be strong implications that CVs are in fact called to embrace the evangelical counsels in at least some form.  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. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christi, Do you have comments on the public witness and eschatological icon items you asked me -- to which I responded? God's Beloved, your comments about the consecrated virgin in the world being both a daughter to her bishop and a mother to all -- especially the needy -- are profound.

 

To be honest, I still think that the call to be a “sign” does very strongly imply some level of visibility (I still have a hard time seeing how it couldn't). Maybe a consecrated virgin doesn’t always have to be immediately identifiable to someone passing her in the street, but I do think that consecrated virgins should be very open about their vocation, and so should be “visible” in at least this sense.

 

And as sort of a side note—I’m not trying to argue that wearing a veil is or should be obligatory for all CVs everywhere. I’m only saying that I think wearing a veil in daily life could be very fitting and praiseworthy for consecrated virgins in many situations.

 

It is true that Our Lady is a sign, even though we can’t see her in person in the same was as we see a religious. However, the Church does take care to ensure that Our Lady's life, her vocation, and her person are kept before our eyes through the proclamation of the Scriptures, through the sacred liturgy, and through various traditional Marian devotions. 

[oremus1]

Right now, I really don’t have an opinion as to whether or not apostolic religious Sisters should be able to receive the consecration of virgins. However, even if this was permitted, it still doesn’t mean that I would have become a Sister instead of a CV!

 

I do think that, under ordinary circumstances, CVs should dedicate their lives to the direct service of the Church, that we should be a visible public witness, that we should live in a spirit of evangelical poverty, etc.  (Though I’ve never thought that we should have a fixed horarium, and I’m not sure where this idea came from.) But even if all CVs did do all these things, to me the vocation of consecrated virginity would still be very different and distinct from apostolic religious life. 

 

no i thought you were saying you wanted to become a sister AND recieve the consecration (at the moment it is not avaliable to active sisters)

[Sponsa-Christi]

no i thought you were saying you wanted to become a sister AND recieve the consecration (at the moment it is not avaliable to active sisters)

 

No, I've always felt called to be a consecrated virgin "in the world." But I never saw living in the world as incompatible with a life of direct service to the Church or with a life of visible public witness. 

[oremus1]

No, I've always felt called to be a consecrated virgin "in the world." But I never saw living in the world as incompatible with a life of direct service to the Church or with a life of visible public witness. 

 

no-one is saying it is incompatibloe, but you seem to be saying it is obligatory that CVS shoudl work for the church full time, and that they should wear distinguishing garb.

 

the garb was dropped from the revised rite for those in the world. the homily gives ways that the CV's service would manifest itself. so while she MIGHT fulfil these by working full time for the church, she MIGHT ALSO work in a secular occupation and still do these, the propositum of virginity is to facilitate nuptials, and not to better assist her to undertake a particular service to the church. her works are just a fruit of her espousal. it is, afterall, not the 'dedication of a virgin to a life of service to the church'. 

 

so it seems you are desiring to impose obligations where there are none, because you feel that the CV vocation is not enough in itself and needs to borrow from the religious life.

 

also, where you wish her to work full time for the church, where the suggested homily says "Love everyone, especially those in need. Help the poor, care for the weak, teach the ignorant, protect the Young, minister to the old, bring strength and comfort to widows and all in adversity." are you suggesting that the CV fulfil this by working with other religious sisters?

 

if so, if you wish her to dress like one, and work with them, what do you feel is so distinctive about the call to being a CV and not a religious sister - since externally, her life would be more or less the same as one, in order to give 'public witness' and be a 'sign'?

[Lilllabettt]

how are secular priests different from religious priests? They are both called father, both wear distinguishing garb, both are celibate.

 

the difference is that secular priests are living in the world.

[arfink]

I thought this was gonna be titled "Consecrated Virgin in the Wild," seeing as the phorum concatenates it to "Consecrated Virgin in the W..."

 

Needless to say, I am very dissapoint.

Edited February 5, 2014 by arfink

[cmaD2006]

how are secular priests different from religious priests? They are both called father, both wear distinguishing garb, both are celibate.

 

the difference is that secular priests are living in the world.

 

Actually there is a big difference ... religious priests take a vow of poverty.  Secular priests do not.  Religious priests take a vow of celibacy, but a secular priest is celibate out of obedience to the Bishop.  That celibacy could be lifted over time if the Church so chooses (since the Church has traditionally allowed married priests).

[Lilllabettt]

uhhhhh .... it was a rhetorical question.

 

to show that "living in the world" (not taking vows) is not antithetical to the wearing of distinguishing dress or the expectation of being dedicated to full time service to the church. 

 

Secular priests do these things - they are not apeing religious life by doing so but living out their call to serve the church "in the world."

Edited February 5, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[oremus1]

uhhhhh .... it was a rhetorical question.

 

to show that "living in the world" (not taking vows) is not antithetical to the wearing of distinguishing dress or the expectation of being dedicated to full time service to the church. 

 

Secular priests do these things - they are not apeing religious life by doing so but living out their call to serve the church "in the world."

yes but it is a requirement for priests to wear distinguishing dress and to visiually set themselves apart.  whereas this was specifically dropped from this rite for CVs, and there is no comparable obligaition. i dont see why you dont find the wedding ring visual enough.religious life is necessarily corporate, and the garb shows that lady to be part one of several who collectively represent the bride, wheras the CV does this individually. if sponsa wants to be identified as a bride of christ not individually but as one of a group, then i think this would be mpre of a call to some form of community life. she even said somewhere she would like them to live in loosely structured convents.

 

amnd i am not saying CVs cannot work full time for the church, i am saying that i do not believe they are required to. i also do not believe that those who do not work full time in service tot he church are living a lesser calling than those who do.

[Lilllabettt]

well, in our culture a wedding ring is not really a visible sign of consecration. It is a visible sign of marriage.

You are right that there is not currently any obligation for CVs to wear any kind of distinguishing dress.

 

My point is that wearing distinguishing dress as a CV is no more out of step with the vocation of living consecrated virginity "in the world" than a secular priest wearing distinguishing dress as he lives out his vocation "in the world."

 

So ... the opinion that it would be good for CVs to wear distinguishing dress is not indicative that a person is trying to fit a structure of religious life onto consecrated virginity.

 

 

 

 

 

[oremus1]

well, in our culture a wedding ring is not really a visible sign of consecration. It is a visible sign of marriage.

You are right that there is not currently any obligation for CVs to wear any kind of distinguishing dress.

 

My point is that wearing distinguishing dress as a CV is no more out of step with the vocation of living consecrated virginity "in the world" than a secular priest wearing distinguishing dress as he lives out his vocation "in the world."

 

So ... the opinion that it would be good for CVs to wear distinguishing dress is not indicative that a person is trying to fit a structure of religious life onto consecrated virginity.

 

so you are saying you think CVs should wear a habit?

 

why?

 

even those working in secular jobs as e.g. firefighters?