Bride Of Christ—another Perspective

[Sponsa-Christi]

As a consecrated virgin who also has an academic background in philosophy and theology, I thought I would share my own thoughts on the vocation to be a bride of Christ. I’m posting this because I’ve been getting the sense that an alternate perspective on this question might be genuinely helpful to some people here.

 

But of course, I hasten to point out that this is my own understanding, and not the official teaching of the Church. Also, if this thread becomes problematic, I would be one of the first ones to ask that the mods shut it down.

 

And so with those disclaimers out of the way…

 

First of all, just to be clear, I think that the general baptismal call to be a “bride,” along with the “spiritual marriage” metaphor used to describe advanced stages of contemplative prayer, are different things from the call to be bride of Christ in a special, vocational, “state of life” sense.

 

I believe that this special call to be a bride of Christ is actually a grace or charism that God gives directly to some women, chosen according to His good pleasure (as opposed to being the direct consequence of an ontological change potentially enacted by a constitutive blessing, as was proposed in the other thread on this topic.)

 

I think that this call to be a bride of Christ involves relating to Christ as a spouse—i.e., by loving Him in such a complete and all-consuming way that an earthly marriage becomes effectively an emotional and spiritual impossibility. The way that a woman accepts this grace is by dedicating herself entirely to God by means of some kind of definitive commitment (even if this commitment simply takes the form of a private vow). Any public profession or consecration within the Church would confirm, deepen, and seal this spousal bond. But, I don’t think it could be said to truly create or initiate it, since the grace to see Christ as one’s spouse is entirely a free gift from God.

 

I do believe that the consecration of virgins is a privileged expression of this special call to be a bride of Christ, since this vocation is the only one which is directly ordered around the grace of relating to Christ as one’s spouse.

 

However, I also think that religious women (who have not received the consecration of virgins) can still be truly brides of Christ. A nun or Sister could certainly have been given the grace to relate to Christ as her spouse, a grace which she would have accepted when she offered her life entirely to Him through her religious profession.

 

Still, I think we could say that religious profession is a less-direct way to be espoused to Christ, since the specific object of the vows is not to be a bride of Christ per se (as it is in the consecration of virgins), but instead simply a closer following of Christ though profession of the evangelical counsels.

 

Because of this, I think it would be a good idea for a female discerner who feels a special call to be Christ’s bride to at least investigate consecrated virginity. But, if she determines that she is called to religious life, I don’t think she should conclude that this means she isn’t called to be Christ’s bride in a true and real sense.

 

On the other hand, I think it’s also possible that a woman might feel called to follow Christ more closely as a religious, but without experiencing a call to relate to Christ in a specifically spousal way. I think we should respect the experience of these women religious, and that it’s important not to “force” a bridal spirituality upon those women to whom this particular grace has not been given.

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi,

 

The difficulty I have with your alternative theory is that it does not explain the existence of the Consecration of Virginity.  If a grace to be a bride of Christ (the essence of Consecrated Virginity) is given to any and sundry dependent on God's pleasure with no tie to anything other than a firm purpose of chastity, then there is no point to religious life nor to consecrated virginity.  All one needs is a spousal spirituality plus private promise of chastity and viola we can conclude from that that God has established a true nuptial bond with Him.  Your theory does not explain virginity vs. chastity, nor why a chaste male cannot become a bride of Christ through his spousal love of Christ through his vow of chastity.  Why would God limit this bridal identity to women since it is not tied to anything but a desire to be a bride?  Your theory also does not make sense unless you were to say that the woman being constituted a "sacred person" and a "bride of Christ" is purely legal fiction on the part of the Church in the Consecration of Virgins given that she can have that grace already in your view.  By having some objective concrete criteria by which we can identify a bride of Christ, we may be able to say that this grace is limited to certain people like only women.  But, by just leaving it up to God, then technically even the angels could get the title.  Of course, the other difficulty is that there is an ontological change with consecration and this is a serious obstacle to the validity of your theory. This is the tradition of the Church.  People already addressed this point on the other thread but you have not come up with any compelling argument to the contrary. 

[abrideofChrist]

I should probably be clearer because not everyone on this forum has had an education in theology or philosophy like you.  The Church is profoundly sacramental (and is Herself a sacrament so to speak) because this is how God chose to relate to human beings.  Sacraments are signs of invisible realities.  Sacramentals are signs of invisible realities.  We have Sacraments (uppercase) and sacraments (lowercase) all over the place to help us unite with God.  He chose to do this because we are flesh and spirit.  Because we are not pure spirit, we cannot immediately perceive the realities that ARE.  Our senses are the mode by which we receive knowledge even if knowledge is itself perceived by our spirit. 

 

If I walked around and saw John Doe for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE, and I felt a spousal attraction to him, can I conclude from that that I have a spousal bond with him and am in fact his wife?  Before shouting NO, please stop.  Stop.  Think.  Why can't I call John my husband since I have a strong spousal attraction to him?  Could it possibly be that for human beings, certain things must be in place before the ontological bond is formed between them, constituting them husband and wife?  For example, is it possible that HIS consent must be obtained?  Is it possible that there must be some reciprocity?  Ok.  Supposing we see each other and feel that spousal attraction.  Then what?  Does this mutual attraction MEAN we ARE MARRIED?  Wait a second.  Don't Catholics at least believe you have to SIGNIFY marital consent to get married by outward signs (like the vows)?  Otherwise, who would you know who you were married to or who someone else was married to?  What if John Doe had FELT that same spousal attraction to Mary Smith instead of me, ABC, two years ago?  Does this mean he is married to her?  Clearly, in such an important spousal relationship, human beings realize that it can't be this mysterious "spousal" grace that descends upon a person and is independent of their consent and independent of exterior signs to express mutual consent. 

 

Just experiencing a spousal attraction to God is part and parcel of being a baptized member of the sacramental Church.  Being a bride of Christ, on the other hand, requires visible actions that create the bond of marriage between the woman virgin and Christ.  This is why we have a ceremony called the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity.  In it, by signs, the minister (the Bishop) says the words of consecration that through the power of the Holy Spirit, make the woman a Bride of Christ.  Without those spoken words on the part of the bishop effecting what is said, she merely has a spousal attraction or even a vow of chastity or a vow of virginity.  Likewise, without pronouncing aloud the vows of marriage, a man and woman do not become married, two in one flesh.

 

Again, this is all because God respects our humanity, the mystery of our being both body and spirit, matter and soul.  He doesn't just randomly confer the priesthood on men. Nor does He randomly confer the bridehood on women.  Both are effected in the Rites of Ordination and Consecration of Virginity respectively.  We call the change that is conferred upon them an ontological change due to the permanent change in their very identity and being (cf. metaphysics re: essence and existence).  There is something about the bodily make up of being male or a man that makes only male matter valid matter for ordination.  Likewise, there is something about the bodily make up of being a woman virgin that makes only female virgin valid matter for "solemn consecration as a bride of Jesus Christ, the Son of God".   Let me repeat, the Church is a sacrament.  There are all kinds of sacraments and sacramentals.  But the basic, most basic idea is that these are signs of realities and some ARE realities.  The Eucharist IS the reality of God.  But the Eucharist is a sign for other things like unity among the faithful.  The consecrated Virgin IS the bride of Christ, but she is a sign of other things, including the heavenly kingdom.  The religious IS a follower of Christ, but she is a sign of other things, including the heavenly kingdom and the Bride of Christ. 

 

This is why definitions are extremely important.  The Church gives specific meanings hammered out throughout the centuries to different words and phrases.  The other day I was speaking to a CV.  We were talking about "solemn vows".  One of us was asking what "Solemn Profession" meant.  The Church has a specific definition for the phrase "solemn vows". It is not synonymous or univocal with the term "perpetual vows" or "final vows" even though it is inclusive of both meanings.  Nor does it refer to the relative solemnity of the ceremony.  Solemn vows is a very specific term that refers to the vows of Religious ORDERS (not congregations who have simple vows) and they have different effects on those people who make them as opposed to the final vows or perpetual vows of members of religious congregations or secular institutes.  One such difference is that the nun or the monk who makes them renounces the very ability to own property.  Simple vows do not have this effect.  For someone who is not familiar with the terminology of the Church, they would not realize that solemn vows has an essentially different definition than religious vows in general.  When I was discussing this with the other CV, we realized how often people confuse the "solemn" profession of simple vows with the profession of solemn vows.  Two different realities.  But they hold a world of difference.  The person pronouncing solemn vows is nullifying their ability to ever actually own property in the future.  The person pronouncing simple vows is only renouncing the ability to administer the property that they own.  Likewise, religious nuns participate in the bridehood of the Church.  But, CVs share in the same definition of bridehood with the Church; they ARE brides by definition rather than participation.  But none of this makes sense unless we understand it in the sacramental context of the Church.  It doesn't make sense unless sacramentals are signs of realities.  If the ministry of the bishop does not in fact make a CV a bride of Christ, then likewise, the marriage vows ministered by the man and woman do not in fact make them husband and wife.  Simple as that.

[freedomreigns]

 

 

I believe that this special call to be a bride of Christ is actually a grace or charism that God gives directly to some women, chosen according to His good pleasure (as opposed to being the direct consequence of an ontological change potentially enacted by a constitutive blessing, as was proposed in the other thread on this topic.)

 

 

 

This makes a lot of sense to me, because it does allow for an understanding of how non-CV religious, amongst others, could be brides of Christ.  The problem I see with excluding all others besides CVs is that this does not account for the saints, such as St. Clare, who believed themselves to "be" brides of Christ. St. Clare used this language when writing also to her sisters.  She spoke to them as brides, not only ladies-who-aren't-brides-but-have-a-bridal-spirituality.  

 

It seems that maybe if God can give grace outside of the ordinary means of the Sacraments that He could likewise have those He gives the grace of being brides in an alternative way to the rite for CV.  

Edited August 10, 2013 by freedomreigns

[Maggyie]

I should probably be clearer because not everyone on this forum has had an education in theology or philosophy like you.  The Church is profoundly sacramental (and is Herself a sacrament so to speak) because this is how God chose to relate to human beings.  Sacraments are signs of invisible realities.  Sacramentals are signs of invisible realities.  We have Sacraments (uppercase) and sacraments (lowercase) all over the place to help us unite with God.  He chose to do this because we are flesh and spirit.  Because we are not pure spirit, we cannot immediately perceive the realities that ARE.  Our senses are the mode by which we receive knowledge even if knowledge is itself perceived by our spirit. 

 

If I walked around and saw John Doe for the FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE, and I felt a spousal attraction to him, can I conclude from that that I have a spousal bond with him and am in fact his wife?  Before shouting NO, please stop.  Stop.  Think.  Why can't I call John my husband since I have a strong spousal attraction to him?  Could it possibly be that for human beings, certain things must be in place before the ontological bond is formed between them, constituting them husband and wife?  For example, is it possible that HIS consent must be obtained?  Is it possible that there must be some reciprocity?  Ok.  Supposing we see each other and feel that spousal attraction.  Then what?  Does this mutual attraction MEAN we ARE MARRIED?  Wait a second.  Don't Catholics at least believe you have to SIGNIFY marital consent to get married by outward signs (like the vows)?  Otherwise, who would you know who you were married to or who someone else was married to?  What if John Doe had FELT that same spousal attraction to Mary Smith instead of me, ABC, two years ago?  Does this mean he is married to her?  Clearly, in such an important spousal relationship, human beings realize that it can't be this mysterious "spousal" grace that descends upon a person and is independent of their consent and independent of exterior signs to express mutual consent. 

 

Just experiencing a spousal attraction to God is part and parcel of being a baptized member of the sacramental Church.  Being a bride of Christ, on the other hand, requires visible actions that create the bond of marriage between the woman virgin and Christ.  This is why we have a ceremony called the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity.  In it, by signs, the minister (the Bishop) says the words of consecration that through the power of the Holy Spirit, make the woman a Bride of Christ.  Without those spoken words on the part of the bishop effecting what is said, she merely has a spousal attraction or even a vow of chastity or a vow of virginity.  Likewise, without pronouncing aloud the vows of marriage, a man and woman do not become married, two in one flesh.

 

Again, this is all because God respects our humanity, the mystery of our being both body and spirit, matter and soul.  He doesn't just randomly confer the priesthood on men. Nor does He randomly confer the bridehood on women.  Both are effected in the Rites of Ordination and Consecration of Virginity respectively.  We call the change that is conferred upon them an ontological change due to the permanent change in their very identity and being (cf. metaphysics re: essence and existence).  There is something about the bodily make up of being male or a man that makes only male matter valid matter for ordination.  Likewise, there is something about the bodily make up of being a woman virgin that makes only female virgin valid matter for "solemn consecration as a bride of Jesus Christ, the Son of God".   Let me repeat, the Church is a sacrament.  There are all kinds of sacraments and sacramentals.  But the basic, most basic idea is that these are signs of realities and some ARE realities.  The Eucharist IS the reality of God.  But the Eucharist is a sign for other things like unity among the faithful.  The consecrated Virgin IS the bride of Christ, but she is a sign of other things, including the heavenly kingdom.  The religious IS a follower of Christ, but she is a sign of other things, including the heavenly kingdom and the Bride of Christ. 

 

This is why definitions are extremely important.  The Church gives specific meanings hammered out throughout the centuries to different words and phrases.  The other day I was speaking to a CV.  We were talking about "solemn vows".  One of us was asking what "Solemn Profession" meant.  The Church has a specific definition for the phrase "solemn vows". It is not synonymous or univocal with the term "perpetual vows" or "final vows" even though it is inclusive of both meanings.  Nor does it refer to the relative solemnity of the ceremony.  Solemn vows is a very specific term that refers to the vows of Religious ORDERS (not congregations who have simple vows) and they have different effects on those people who make them as opposed to the final vows or perpetual vows of members of religious congregations or secular institutes.  One such difference is that the nun or the monk who makes them renounces the very ability to own property.  Simple vows do not have this effect.  For someone who is not familiar with the terminology of the Church, they would not realize that solemn vows has an essentially different definition than religious vows in general.  When I was discussing this with the other CV, we realized how often people confuse the "solemn" profession of simple vows with the profession of solemn vows.  Two different realities.  But they hold a world of difference.  The person pronouncing solemn vows is nullifying their ability to ever actually own property in the future.  The person pronouncing simple vows is only renouncing the ability to administer the property that they own.  Likewise, religious nuns participate in the bridehood of the Church.  But, CVs share in the same definition of bridehood with the Church; they ARE brides by definition rather than participation.  But none of this makes sense unless we understand it in the sacramental context of the Church.  It doesn't make sense unless sacramentals are signs of realities.  If the ministry of the bishop does not in fact make a CV a bride of Christ, then likewise, the marriage vows ministered by the man and woman do not in fact make them husband and wife.  Simple as that.

 

I'm a complete novice in terms of theology, I don't have much to say on the bride of Christ argument. But the above is kind of a capsule example of why I find consecrated virginity as a separate vocation to be highly troubling and in dire need of clarification from the authorities.

 

Consecrated virginity can not really be compared to  ordination or the natural vocation of marriage. There are some similarities, yes. But ordination is a Sacrament (uppercase). Marriage is a Sacrament. Of course, one can't be married or ordained just like that.

 

But Consecration is NOT a Sacrament. If, as we believe, God is not strictly confined to the Sacrament of Penance in offering forgiveness, then I suppose He could also have a bridal relationship with someone absent the consecrating words of a bishop. If He wanted to.

[abrideofChrist]

Maggie, I will respond to your question in my thread.  I have said enough on this one and will probably not post anymore on it unless I feel moved to doing so.

Edited August 10, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[BarbTherese]

What of the young woman intent on keeping her virginity and entering religious life in the early pre V2 years who is then raped.  Under the impression that she MUST be a virgin to enter religious life, she approaches an Order of women penitents (branch of the Good Shepherd religious order, back then known as The Magdalene).  Rather than being informed that her lack of physical virginity due to rape does not preclude her from religious life, she is accepted into the Magdalene Order as a penitent and is personally convinced after previous experiences with admission that she should indeed be absolutely penitent for the rape (encouraged by her novice mistress) and this young woman is overcome with remorse and sorrow for ruining her life.  She entirely fails to sight that the rape was never her doing.

After applying to enter The Magdalene Order she is bundled into a taxi to a male monastery to go to Confession.  This confuses the young lady as she has already been.  The monastic order priest to whom she does confess does nothing to remove all her incorrect notions re the rape and encourages her to enter the Magdalene Order.

 

While in The Magdalene, the confessor turns out to be a priest who had known her previously and he tries to encourage her to see that rape does not preclude her from all forms of religious life and begins to encourage her to leave and to enter Carmel.  He is very familiar with her soul over many years prior to her entering the Magdalene Order.

 

 When the young woman's novice mistress in The Magdalene religious order discovers (the young lady tells her) that Father is encouraging her to leave and enter Carmel, the novice mistress is most upset and instructs the young lady to not talk to Father again about Carmel until she has a talk with the religious order priest who is going to give them a retreat in a few months.  The young lady follows Mother's instructions and does not actively engage in conversations with her confessor about Carmel.  She speaks to the mission priest who explodes and tells her to never allow anyone whatsoever to tell her what to say or not say in the Confessional.

 

The young lady is told by the novice mistress (who is very upset over what the mission priest has said) she cannot enter Carmel until she is 21 years of age.  Not wanting to return to the world, the young lady asks that she be allowed to stay with the Good Shepherd Sisters until she is 21 (she is only 16yrs of age).  She is refused and asked to make up her mind.  She again talks with her confessor and decides to leave terribly afraid. Her novice mistress is most abrupt and tells her she is abandoning her vocation and asks her to leave immediately, which she does.  She applies to Carmel and is accepted but only when she turns 21 years of age.  Out in the world, confused and hurt on many levels, she again faces all the problems she had in the circumstances around the rape.  Confused and isolated living in an isolated area, she marries in the Church as a desperate attempt to avoid those circumstances.

She remains married and has one child and a foster child.  After 15 years of marriage, her husband forces her out of their marital home after she has a severe breakdown and her children are taken from her by her mother.  Her then confessor and director advises her to seek annulment.  After 6 years it is granted and she then makes private vows and lives to date happily ever after.

Through all this she keeps her Faith - she has no idea while all the above has happened to her and experiences great confusions on many levels but perseveres through it all in Faith and trust moving on in her life as Peacefully and Joyfully as exterior and interior circumstances might permit and yet, strangely, to all and sundry despite all the circumstances of her life (which she strives to keep hidden), she is marked by others as a joyful and happy person.

 

What all these theological type of understandings are totally ignoring are circumstances and the Love of Jesus that embraces the most least also - withholding none of His Graces - non of them and remarkable and possibly rare Graces.  The threads on the vocation of CV may be encouraging to some, to others they just might have a devastating factor for some others.

          .  Back pre VII, rape was considered a measure of disgrace for the victim and for some a huge disgrace marking the person as abandoned by God who has allowed the rape to occur and for her sinfulness. That somehow the victim allowed the rape to occur and was with guilt involved in it - simply because she is not dead like St Maria Goretti.  Of course, this was very wrong, but did mark the theological understanding of many particularly women religious back in those days, but not only religious women.  It was also embedded in Catholic culture generally speaking.

[Spem in alium]

As a young woman discerning consecrated life, I have been looking over the "bride of Christ" threads with some interest. It does seem like an issue which hosts divided opinions. I appreciate what you have said here, Sponsa Christi. Several days ago I read something on consecrated life that addressed the question of why bridal imagery is associated with those who live such a life. There are some people who would see bridal imagery within consecrated life as pure sentimentalism or erroneous romanticising. I would like to share the key points here. They may be simple and easily understood, but they did help me and perhaps they will do the same for another person here:

 

1. Consecrated chastity uniquely embodies and participates in the spousal nature of the Church. The spousal image, says Fr Thomas Dubay SM, is the most "apt and normal" image of intimate and total self-giving of one to another and is referenced consistently within Scripture. 
2. Consecrated chastity includes elements of bridal ornamentation, and the "adornment" of the people of God espoused to Christ is again referenced in Scripture. Clear connections are made between the wedding veil of a bride and the veil of a religious woman. For early religious woman, the veil was a sign that they were "married to Christ". Similar connections are also made between the rings worn by married and religious women, both of which symbolise espousal. 
3. Consecrated women dedicate themselves to Christ in a way synonymous with a wife's dedication to her husband. Both relationships are exclusive and undivided.

4. The life of the consecrated woman serves as a reminder of the impending joys described in the Book of Revelation: that at the end of time, Christ and his Church will be intimately united in the way a bridegroom is with his bride, and that all earthly marriages will be subordinate to the marriage of Christ and his Church. The consecrated woman thus anticipates the final age by devoting herself exclusively to Christ while on earth. 
5. Consecrated women are set apart, not for being isolated but for being united. In Hebrew, the word for "holiness" or "set apart", kodesh or kiddushin, is the same word used for "marriage", because in a marriage a man sets one woman apart from all other women; she becomes consecrated to him, and he to her. Similarly, those living consecrated chastity are set apart so they can unite themselves to God. 
6. Consecrated chastity mirrors Our Lady's virginal motherhood. The roles of virgin and mother are made co-existent in her, and she encourages us to see how both vocations explain and complete each other. 
7. Consecrated chastity embodies the beauty and privilege of spiritual motherhood, which is no less fruitful than conceiving children of the flesh.
8. Consecrated women offer themselves as a gift to their Divine Spouse. As said by Blessed Pope John Paul II, marriage, either sacramental or spiritual, signifies the "sincere gift of the person" of the bride to the groom. It is taught that in response to Christ's unreserved offering of himself while on the cross, the nun offers her own self with Christ to the Father in the work of redemption.
9. As a vocation, consecrated chastity is motivated by the charity of the Divine Spouse. Chastity is always motivated by charity and can be exercised in both married and religious life, but for consecrated women this charity extends beyond the usual limits. While a married woman would not see her husband in all men, a consecrated woman sees her Divine Spouse in all people and her fidelity to Christ is her fidelity to them.
10. Consecrated chastity is a vocation and not a career. Women who are called to consecrated chastity and who see such a life as a "job to be done" are likely to reject spousal love as foreign.  Conversely, women who see their call to offer themselves to Christ as a way of being in love with God are easily attracted to the nuptial gifts and explanation. The point FreedomReigns makes about St Clare is also seen with St Teresa of Avila, who on numerous occasions in writing to her Sisters expressed the relationship that they enjoyed with God on account of their espousal with Christ.   

 

 

However, I also think that religious women (who have not received the consecration of virgins) can still be truly brides of Christ. A nun or Sister could certainly have been given the grace to relate to Christ as her spouse, a grace which she would have accepted when she offered her life entirely to Him through her religious profession.

 

Still, I think we could say that religious profession is a less-direct way to be espoused to Christ, since the specific object of the vows is not to be a bride of Christ per se (as it is in the consecration of virgins), but instead simply a closer following of Christ though profession of the evangelical counsels.

 

Because of this, I think it would be a good idea for a female discerner who feels a special call to be Christ’s bride to at least investigate consecrated virginity. But, if she determines that she is called to religious life, I don’t think she should conclude that this means she isn’t called to be Christ’s bride in a true and real sense.

 

On the other hand, I think it’s also possible that a woman might feel called to follow Christ more closely as a religious, but without experiencing a call to relate to Christ in a specifically spousal way. I think we should respect the experience of these women religious, and that it’s important not to “force” a bridal spirituality upon those women to whom this particular grace has not been given.

 

I agree with these points. I know some Sisters who would embrace espousal with Christ and some who would not consider themselves or their vocation in such a way. I believe it truly is a matter of grace.

[abrideofChrist]

Consecrated chastity is not consecrated virginity.  The fathers and doctors of the Church obviously found virginity to be fully spousal and vowed chastity not.  Fr. Dubay himself has talked about this.  You may want to refer to my previous thread on the matter because he makes the distinction between virgins and chaste women.

[BarbTherese]

One little addition, after the annulment, the now approaching 36 or so year old woman applies to several religious orders and is turned away due to the fact that she has had a mental breakdown.  But not nicely turned away with respect for her selfhood and emotional self, but with entirely negative statements.  She has sustained a friendship with Carmel all through her life and the prioress in Carmel understands that God has something else in mind other than religious life.  Later unfoldings prove that the prioress in Carmel was absolutely correct.

[Spem in alium]

Consecrated chastity is not consecrated virginity.  The fathers and doctors of the Church obviously found virginity to be fully spousal and vowed chastity not.  Fr. Dubay himself has talked about this.  You may want to refer to my previous thread on the matter because he makes the distinction between virgins and chaste women.

 

Thank you for this point. I understand that. Though what would you say of a virginal woman who committed herself to vowed chastity as a nun or religious sister? Could she not rightly consider herself as espoused with Christ because of both factors (her virginity and her vows)?

[BarbTherese]

 

 http://www.ewtn.com/...STS/FR91203.TXT

If Christ proposes the way of the counsels to all the faithful, it is difficult
to avoid the conclusion that choosing not to embrace it is, at the very least, a
sign of lesser zeal. A lay person, simply by remaining lay, fails somehow to
seek perfection; an idea not uncommon among monastic writers, but firmly
rejected by the Magisterium.[7]

 

Catholilc Catechism

1973 Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God's commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it.

 

1974 The evangelical counsels manifest the living fullness of charity, which is never satisfied with not giving more. They attest its vitality and call forth our spiritual readiness. The perfection of the New Law consists essentially in the precepts of love of God and neighbour. The counsels point out the more direct ways, the readier means, and are to be practiced in keeping with the vocation of each:

 

[God] does not want each person to keep all the counsels, but only those appropriate to the diversity of persons, times, opportunities, and strengths, as charity requires; for it is charity, as queen of all virtues, all commandments, all counsels, and, in short, of all laws and all Christian actions that gives to all of them their rank, order, time, and value.

 

 

 

Vita Consecrata

http://www.vatican.v...secrata_en.html

The Order of Virgins; hermits and widows

7. It is a source of joy and hope to witness in our time a new flowering of the ancient Order of Virgins, known in Christian communities ever since apostolic times.Consecrated by the diocesan Bishop, these women acquire a particular link with the Church, which they are commited to serve while remaining in the world. Either alone or in association with others, they constitute a special eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and of the life to come, when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.

 

 

 

http://catholicdista...2013/02/04/237/
 

A consecrated virgin, like St. Agatha, is considered an image or sign of the relationship between Christ and his Church (923). She is meant to be an image of the life that each of us ideally will have in the future Kingdom of God.

This is the reason the Church places such importance on the consecrated life and on these women who are essentially married to Christ—we are all and each of us meant to be his bride.  St. Paul writes of this relationship beautifully in his Letter to the Ephesians (5:22-33). It is a relationship of communion.

The word communion is often used lightly today, but the relationship we are to have with Christ is one that is so much more than we find in today’s relationships. It is one of intimate sharing—the one that is witnessed to by those in consecrated life on a daily basis. They have been called, in a more perfect way, to experience this communion with their Lord while on earth. How amazing!

In essence, this means that they hold a great responsibility. These men and women are called to set the example for us.  By their example, Christ is calling us to respond. Their vocation is a reminder to love God more perfectly and to live our lives preparing for intimate communion with Christ. No wonder the Church dedicates a day of prayer for them.

[cmaD2006]

I appreciate Sponsa Christi's point of view too. And I have stayed away from the other thread because it really turned into a debate table type of thread.

AbrideofChrist ... you've spoken your point of view abundantly in the other thread. This thread is giving an alternative view. Could you please not turn it into a debate and allow a different view to come forth?

[abrideofChrist]

Thank you for this point. I understand that. Though what would you say of a virginal woman who committed herself to vowed chastity as a nun or religious sister? Could she not rightly consider herself as espoused with Christ because of both factors (her virginity and her vows)?

 

Spem in alium,

 

The other thread discusses this at great length.  I don't know if you realize this, but certain nuns can receive the consecration of virginity over and above their solemn religious profession of vows and consecration as religious.  St. Clare was a virgin and she was a religious but she never received the consecration of virgins even though she could have.  But the very fact that she could have received the consecration of virgins means that there is something different about a virgin who is a religious only and a virgin who is a religious AND a consecrated virgin.  Here's a link to what I'm talking about. 
 

[Spem in alium]

Spem in alium,

 

The other thread discusses this at great length.  I don't know if you realize this, but certain nuns can receive the consecration of virginity over and above their solemn religious profession of vows and consecration as religious.  St. Clare was a virgin and she was a religious but she never received the consecration of virgins even though she could have.  But the very fact that she could have received the consecration of virgins means that there is something different about a virgin who is a religious only and a virgin who is a religious AND a consecrated virgin.  Here's a link to what I'm talking about. 
 

 

Thank you for your response. I do realise this, yes. But with respect, I was not asking whether or not a nun could also be a consecrated virgin, nor was I asking whether there is a difference between consecrated and unconsecrated virgins. I know both of these to be the case. I was asking whether you think a nun who is a virgin (but not necessarily a consecrated virgin) could rightly consider herself a spouse of Christ. If you would like to answer, please do as I am interested in what you have to say.

While I am interested in this subject, I have stayed away from the other thread recently and only followed the first few pages of posts as I also found it to be too much of a debate. If this subject has been discussed at length there, I did not realise and thus apologise for bringing up something that has already been discussed to a great extent and perhaps already exhausted. :)