Bride Of Christ

[God's Beloved]

Didn't reply to this post but somehow it was quoted above. Thanks for clarifying about ontological change :) I understand now what types there are.

 

I am not sure if the religious consecration has differences for men and women: I mean even if women don't have the Consecration of Virginity, the Rite still has some spousal language (like we see in the case of Sr Josefa, or other ones previously quoted, about rings etc) - that I assume the male religious orders don't have. Not sure how this affects everything.... I understand how the CVs receive an ontological change that makes them the brides of Christ. This reality is also explicitly stated for them. You said that religious share in the bridal spirituality. What does this sharing mean, and how does it affect the soul, and whether someone can be a bride of Christ in a  more implicit way together with their vows - I don't know. I don't want to ignore the theology of Consecrated Virginity, I also don't want to ignore what happened to many of the Saints and Sr Josefa Menendez, - there's got to be an explanation that takes them both into account.

 

 

There are different rites for the Profession of simple vows by Apostolic religious men and women .The prayer of blessing or consecration in the rite of religious profession for women has two versions----only one version uses spousal imagery. So it is possible some religious congregations do not use the version of the blessing with a spousal imagery .It is also possible that within the same religious congregation or institute for women , some members receive a blessing during their Perpetual Profession  which has spousal imagery and others receive a blessing without this imagery.

 

This is because Religious life 'in general' reflects the marriage of the Church with Christ . Since community life is essential to religious life ,  the religious community reflects the  church community which is the Bride of Christ . Each member 'participates' in the spousal union  and  has freedom to follow the spousal spirituality privately as several religious do.

 

A consecrated virgin  even as an individual reflects the entire church community which is the Bride of Christ.

[Gabriela]

The nuns of Regina Laudis also go through the consecration of virgins. I can't give you any details since it has been awhile since I read Mother Benedicta's biography but their efforts to get permission for this are detailed in the book.

http://abbeyofreginalaudis.org/sitelive/index.htm

http://www.ignatius.com/PressRelease/MotherBenedictPressKitBundle.pdf

Here is a bio of one of their nuns that states she was consecrated a virgin - there is more on the website http://abbeyofreginalaudis.org/sitelive/community/mstephen/mstephen.htm
 

 

 

 

Reverend Mother Stephen Prokes, OSB, 83, a Benedictine nun of the Abbey of Regina Laudis in Bethlehem, Connecticut, died on Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at St. Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury.

Calling hours will be at the Abbey Church of Jesu Fili Mariae, on Robert Leather Road in Bethlehem, Thursday, July 8, from 3 to 9 p.m. and Friday, July 9, following the conventual Mass, from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Requiem Mass will take place at 10 a.m., Saturday, July 10, at the Abbey church, followed by burial in the Abbey cemetery.

other Stephen was born Mary Louise Prokes on February 25, 1927 in Jackson, Minnesota to Wenceslaus and Ludmilla Dostal Prokes, the fifth of six children in a devout Catholic family. She earned her Bachelor of Science Degree at Mount Marty College and her Master’s degree in Education at Mankato State Teachers College, becoming a teacher of English and physical education. She taught at Marycliff High School in Spokane, Washington, and at the Academy of Our Lady of Good Counsel in Mankato, Minnesota.
She also taught with the Benedictine Sisters at Mount Marty College in Yankton, South Dakota for two years, before entering Regina Laudis in September 1953. She was clothed as Sister Stephen in September 1954, and made her Perpetual Vows and received the Consecration of a Virgin on March 12, 1959; she celebrated her Golden Jubilee in 2006.

 

 

I don't think it's possible for all the sisters at Regina Laudis to have been CVs. Is that what you're saying? I know there is one sister there who was married before entering...

[abrideofChrist]

I thought the Church only used the term "ontological change" in regards to the Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul

 

You asked if I were hairsplitting definitions in post 67.  The implication of your post was that people shouldn't hairsplit or try to define things.  Yet, here you are, trying to make a distinction about "ontological change", a hairsplitting concept according to you.  Has it ever occurred to you that "hairsplitting" can mean the difference between heresy and truth?

 

Philosophy students learn the meaning of "ontological being" and the Church uses that terminology in particular ways.  The most correct and strict definition of "ontological change" actually has to do with a change of substance.  This is Philosophy 101.  So, far from using the term only in reference to Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul, the Church actually points to the transubstantiation as the most obvious kind of "ontological change".  Derivative meanings of the phrase "ontological change" in the Catholic tradition has to do with serious changes to the substance and being of a thing or person.  And, as others who have taken basic philosophy and theology have pointed out already, ontological change is posited of religious consecration. 

 

Since you are content to be the Lord's (post 92), I suggest that you toss the Catechism because it contains too many complicated concepts and distracts people from the business of loving Him.  I mean, seriously, even the Catechism talks about the differences in vocations.  Too many clearly defined concepts, I'm afraid.

 

To everyone else who is not clear on the concept of ontological change, I suggest doing some reading up on it, and not turning this into a tangential discussion.  A solid understanding of the concept will give people the mind tools necessary  to understand the fundamental differences between religious consecration and virginal consecration.  It is tied to the philosophical treatment of being and essence.  Without knowing what a substance is or what it means to have an essence one cannot begin to argue for example that apples and pears are essentially different or essentially the same thing.  Nor can they begin to have a reasoned discourse on whether religious consecration differs essentially from virginal consecration.  But perhaps this is too much work for the poor mind and one shouldn't care whether an apple and a pear are different or that religious and consecrated virgins have their differences too.  It is far easier to simply hurl emotional statements, emotional quotes, and disingenuous "questions" than it is to carry on a logical discussion in good faith. 

 

For those people who have continually disagreed  with me and demanded proof of writings from the magisterium of the Church only to deliberately misunderstand them when I've presented them and resort to personal feelings and private revelations and attacking my "tone", I have been very patient and attempted in good faith to explain what I have learned.  It is discourteous at this point in the discussion to not address the substantial arguments I have made with equally substantial materials since I take care to adequately research my points and I don't feel that this courtesy has been extended to me.  This post is a perfect example of it, because like I have pointed out, philosphy is clear as to what is meant by "ontological change" and the same can be said of theology.This does not apply to everyone who has posted but only to those who continue to somehow twist and misinterpret not only what I have said but what the Church has said to fit their desire of making religious sisters brides of Christ at any cost. 

 

Not all vocations are for everyone nor is it the Church's duty to pander to the entitlement attitude expressed in this thread for women to be considered brides of Christ.  Think about this.  Many women argue that primary virginity is not required for the consecration of virginity!  Why?  Because they can't stand the idea that not everyone qualifies!  Picking and choosing what we want to believe is essentially a Protestant attitude. To those who have engaged in friendly discussion with an open mind, it has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts.  It is not quite the same pleasure when people disagree with what I have said simply because they "feel" that they don't like it without giving any rational foundation to their "feelings". 

 

I respectfully request that at this point in our conversation, that people actually start giving me good compelling reasons for their positions and demonstrate precisely where and how their position refutes what I have stated or quoted.  For example, if you wish to quote private revelations saying that Jesus espoused Sr. or St. So and So, do so, but then demonstrate how and why you think that such a private revelation trumps the Church's use of the Rite of Consecration or show that it is not a spirituality rather than ontological reality!

[freedomreigns]

You asked if I were hairsplitting definitions in post 67.  The implication of your post was that people shouldn't hairsplit or try to define things.  Yet, here you are, trying to make a distinction about "ontological change", a hairsplitting concept according to you.  Has it ever occurred to you that "hairsplitting" can mean the difference between heresy and truth?

 

Philosophy students learn the meaning of "ontological being" and the Church uses that terminology in particular ways.  The most correct and strict definition of "ontological change" actually has to do with a change of substance.  This is Philosophy 101.  So, far from using the term only in reference to Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul, the Church actually points to the transubstantiation as the most obvious kind of "ontological change".  Derivative meanings of the phrase "ontological change" in the Catholic tradition has to do with serious changes to the substance and being of a thing or person.  And, as others who have taken basic philosophy and theology have pointed out already, ontological change is posited of religious consecration. 

 

Since you are content to be the Lord's (post 92), I suggest that you toss the Catechism because it contains too many complicated concepts and distracts people from the business of loving Him.  I mean, seriously, even the Catechism talks about the differences in vocations.  Too many clearly defined concepts, I'm afraid.

 

To everyone else who is not clear on the concept of ontological change, I suggest doing some reading up on it, and not turning this into a tangential discussion.  A solid understanding of the concept will give people the mind tools necessary  to understand the fundamental differences between religious consecration and virginal consecration.  It is tied to the philosophical treatment of being and essence.  Without knowing what a substance is or what it means to have an essence one cannot begin to argue for example that apples and pears are essentially different or essentially the same thing.  Nor can they begin to have a reasoned discourse on whether religious consecration differs essentially from virginal consecration.  But perhaps this is too much work for the poor mind and one shouldn't care whether an apple and a pear are different or that religious and consecrated virgins have their differences too.  It is far easier to simply hurl emotional statements, emotional quotes, and disingenuous "questions" than it is to carry on a logical discussion in good faith. 

 

For those people who have continually disagreed  with me and demanded proof of writings from the magisterium of the Church only to deliberately misunderstand them when I've presented them and resort to personal feelings and private revelations and attacking my "tone", I have been very patient and attempted in good faith to explain what I have learned.  It is discourteous at this point in the discussion to not address the substantial arguments I have made with equally substantial materials since I take care to adequately research my points and I don't feel that this courtesy has been extended to me.  This post is a perfect example of it, because like I have pointed out, philosphy is clear as to what is meant by "ontological change" and the same can be said of theology.This does not apply to everyone who has posted but only to those who continue to somehow twist and misinterpret not only what I have said but what the Church has said to fit their desire of making religious sisters brides of Christ at any cost. 

 

Not all vocations are for everyone nor is it the Church's duty to pander to the entitlement attitude expressed in this thread for women to be considered brides of Christ.  Think about this.  Many women argue that primary virginity is not required for the consecration of virginity!  Why?  Because they can't stand the idea that not everyone qualifies!  Picking and choosing what we want to believe is essentially a Protestant attitude. To those who have engaged in friendly discussion with an open mind, it has been a pleasure sharing my thoughts.  It is not quite the same pleasure when people disagree with what I have said simply because they "feel" that they don't like it without giving any rational foundation to their "feelings". 

 

I respectfully request that at this point in our conversation, that people actually start giving me good compelling reasons for their positions and demonstrate precisely where and how their position refutes what I have stated or quoted.  For example, if you wish to quote private revelations saying that Jesus espoused Sr. or St. So and So, do so, but then demonstrate how and why you think that such a private revelation trumps the Church's use of the Rite of Consecration or show that it is not a spirituality rather than ontological reality!

You are not "respectful" in the least, in this post or in several other places. 

 

I am glad that you noticed that I expected you, who wanted to look precisely at things, to be precise in your use of the term "ontological change."  Something being speculative theology versus being official doctrine of the Church does not necessarily mean it is not true, but we should delineate when we are using a term in the way the Church has not used in the way we are and not give the impression of speaking FOR the Church.  

 

I do not think a single person here is asking the Church to "pander" to anyone being called "bride of Christ" any more than did the many CANONIZED saints who used this term in a way not referring to specifically consecrated virgins, but often to themselves- souls beloved of the Lord.  I will take the preponderance of the witness of the saints as good enough for me.  Maybe in heaven they and I will be corrected. 

 

I do understand the distinction you are trying to make between saying there is an "ontological change" in Consecrated Virgins and that there is not for other consecrated persons for whom this can be a "spirituality."  That is why I asked you whether or not the Church uses that language.

 

In any case, "ontological changes" are not nearly as important as changes such as virtue and the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit.  These things are always in season.  Charity is necessary in every vocation.  

 

Maybe you do not mean for your tone to be the way it comes across.  I have been in that boat before.  I am not only talking about in this one specific post.  I will let you rip into me now if you want without response, lest I lose my soul or offend my Lord over some silly argument on the internet.   I wish you nothing but Peace in Christ Jesus the Lord.  

[MarysLittleFlower]

AbrideofChrist,

 

I understand it must be frustrating to give theological or philosophical arguments in a thread and receive responses that don't have much to do with the points or theology. I apologize if that's the case with my posts. I think others' posts have more to do with theology than perhaps mine do. I am not trained in philosophy nor theology and there's not much that I can add to the discussion with my present knowledge. Mostly the books I read are lives of the Saints or devotional works. I'll try to look up information on ontological change tomorrow and do some research on how this relates to religious life or consecrated virginity.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[freedomreigns]

I regret having posted at all on this thread.  Lord, have mercy on my soul.  My apologies if I have offended you, ABOC.  I am a sinner and tend to get more passionate than need be, especially when I perceive being disrespected.  Yet in judging others I condemn myself.

 

From now on let me only aspire to do as St. Paul counsels : "Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not only for his own interests but also everyone for those of others.  Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus."  (Philippians 2) 

 

 

[Laurie]

I have a few thoughts here.

 

One is that I think it is crucial to distinguish between what one person might write versus whatever emotion *I myself feel* when I read what that person has written. Very often, what we call someone else's "tone" is rooted in our own personal mood of the moment. Everyone has different styles of writing, of communicating. Each have different personalities.

 

I do think each person, though (I mean, in life in general, not just on this blog!), needs to step back & consider the source of an emotion, and not just attribute an emotion felt to something someone else said or did. If I were to have an interior attitude of "she wrote this and made me feel X," that would be an immature attitude. "She" (whoever she is) didn't *make me feel* anything at all. She stated her intellectual position (or personal opinion, or whatever). How I receive it is up to me. Emotions can be a great barometer of where I'm at in my own spiritual life (or even just a good barometer of the day I've had--am I cranky? Am I tired?). All of these things can play in to what I perceive someone else's "tone" to be. It's important to stop sometimes and examine our emotional reactions. Did I feel peeved after reading such and such? Ok, why? Were my feelings hurt when I heard this or that? Why? What's at the root of that feeling?

 

I read ABRIDEOFCHRIST's posts and I am thankful for the enormous amount of time she has put into learning about the CV vocation. This does not at all apply to everyone who  has posted on this thread, but it does seem there are some who don't actually want to read anything about the CV vocation on his or her own. It kind of comes across like a few people just want to spout their thoughts, about what they already think they think, without rolling up their sleeves and tackling some of the hard problems. If you aren't inclined to tackle hard problems, that's okay, but then don't dismiss the positions of others who have dedicated quite a number of years to the topic and have come to what they themselves admit were not easy conclusions.

 

There is a great USACV website, with 400 pages (!) of stuff on it. There are some very basic points about this vocation that 10 minutes on that site would clear up. There is a fabuloso canonist by the name of Raymond Cardinal Burke who has authored some of it. He has a BA and MA in philosophy. He has a BA and MA in Sacred Theology. That same man has a licentiate and doctorate in canon law! He's a real gift to the Church and to this vocation. Anyone who really wants to get a solid view of this vocation might want to look into some of the things he's written. I think a few minutes reading the Church's documents on this vocation (the Rite itself, or Canon 604, or the section on the Catechism that mentions it) would help some here to see that ABRIDEOFCHRIST is not pulling opinions out of her ears when she says the CV vocation IS essentially spousal and that the language the Church uses, repeatedly, to describe this vocation is striking, extremely strong, and unique in its classication of a CV AS a Bride of Christ.

 

I do think ABRIDEOFCHRIST has very clearly stated her positions and her reasons for them--over, and over, and over. I appreciate the repitition in that, because she's learned in disciplines I'm not, and sometimes I'll catch something the 2nd time around that I missed the first time.

 

But I would guess it can get tiring to clarify, and explain, and re-explain your positions only to have a few people (not all) simply argue, and argue, and argue, because they don't like the position held.

 

I'm off the school that, if you don't like a position, no problemo. Tell everyone what your position is. Just back it up with something concrete. And if you offer up your position as a critique of someone else's position, your own position just might get criticized. That's part of the whole give and take of hammering ideas out and dialoguing. Dialouging isn't always neat & pretty and doesn't always feel good, but if you are engaging in it with people who care about the truth, it is worthwhile.

[Egeria]

Reading some of this argument, I can't help think that it's things like this that gave scholasticism a bad name. Next we will be told how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. 

 

I've never liked the identification of nuptial imagery with religious life, but if religious want to describe themselves as brides, it seems the height of arrogance and insensitivity to object to that. 

 

I have learnt - partly from hard experience - that those who spend too much energy defending the exclusivity of their own vocations, especially when that is coupled with an arrogance towards others, are often covering over deeper problems. 

[Laurie]

Egeria, I know there is an awful lot to read on these pages. But ABRIDEOFCHRIST did say very clearly that all vocations are equal.

 

In fact, I think she put it in caps. EQUAL. It's in the same post as saying that men and women are equal. EQUAL.

[Lilllabettt]

Looking at the merits, I tend to agree with the viewpoint of abrideofChrist. 

 

But she should know that the "style" she has used over and over again in this thread and others comes off as arrogance and condescension and frankly bitterness. This has been the impression of several different members over a length of time.

 

If you honestly don't care that your presentation is coming off this way, that would seem to indicate that you are in need of further formation before you go forward representing consecrated life on the internet.

 

 

[Chiquitunga]

abrideofChrist, I hope I have engaged in friendly dialogue here with an open mind, but if not I am sorry. I appreciate all you have written here, and I am learning a lot. I have read all of your replies, especially to my posts a few times and am trying to understand (fyi, my font is different here because I typed this on gmail, easier to save as you go there :j)

 

There are two main ideas that I still hold, that I will try to back up here with sources. 

 

1) that Nuns can be called brides of Christ in a special way, though not on par with Consecrated Virgins, and

 

2) that when women make a total gift of themselves to God, it is spousal in nature, by participation in His Church - and that their individual relationship with Christ can be spousal

 

First I will say before writing anything else, after reading all of your posts and spending some time on the USACV site, http://consecratedvirgins.org/  it is clear to me that Consecrated Virgins posses the fullness of being brides of Christ, the essence of their vocation, especially consecrated as such by the Church, and told by the Church that they share this title with Her.

 

This means, as you have said, that all others are brides of Christ by participation in His Church (as all members of the Church also share in the common priesthood) Some participate in this to a greater extent than others however (as you have also pointed out clearly), especially consecrated women (not excluding those in secular institutes), because by their very nature as women, they especially mirror this mystery of the Church as Bride, and to an even greater extent, cloistered contemplative women religious, which is stated in Verbi Sponsa (specific quote in #113). 

 

Continuing in this thought, I do believe that Nuns in particular can be called brides of Christ in a special way, though not to the same degree as Consecrated Virgins. 

 

I believe this first because they are the Heirs of the first Consecrated Virgins, as it says in Sponsa Christi. There are numerous CVs around now, but I still believe Nuns can be called the Heirs. This is still their history and has been part of how the Church viewed Nuns for centuries. I do not believe the reintroduction of the Rite of Consecrated Virginity in 1970 meant to change that. If St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church (pointing this out for others), addressed them as such in his work The True Spouse of Jesus Christ, I think they can still be referred to as such today.

 

Second, I believe this, that Nuns can be called brides of the Christ in a special way, because Verbi Sponsa addressed them as such (eg, "the nun, bride of the Incarnate Word") 

 

Note: I have also read many private revelations where Our Lord addresses Nuns and active Religious as His brides, but I would not include that in a discussion like this, because these are not required for belief/and are not part of the deposit of Faith, as is known. I love these works very very much though! (to let you know, MarysLittleFlower).

 

To reply directly to a couple posts...

 

The best defense I have personally read for calling nuns "brides of Christ" actually quotes from the Rite of Consecration as its strongest reason for saying all nuns/sisters are brides of Christ.  That, if you think about it, is very telling because the author had to quote verbatim from the Rite which means that if this was the best thing they could muster and it wasn't even their vocation, then they didn't have a solid case.

 

I think Verbi Sponsa is another good defense of this. 

 

The Popes in Sacra Virginitas and Verbi Sponsa use the word "consecrated virgins" equivocally as well because they are not describing consecrated virginity per se.  I think future documents will be much more careful in their language because right now "consecrated virginity" is being used to designate the vocation of those who have received the Consecration to a Life of Virginity, which was its original meaning to begin with.

 

Verbi Sponsa does not specifically use the term Consecrated Virgins actually. It makes reference once to virginity of spirit and another time to a work by St. Basil on Virginity. There are a few other times the word Virgin comes up, but not very many. This is a recent document (1999) and they probably intentionally tried to not do this for the reason you give. Spousal language however was not lacking.

 

 

Going back over my posts especially #116 and 118, to address those again in light of what I have written above - because I believe this, that Nuns can be called brides of Christ in a special way, I do not believe that women who are called to the cloistered contemplative religious life, to Orders that do not have the Consecration of Virgins, will experience more the call to give themselves to God as disciples rather than as brides. This is really the main one issue I am trying to express in all of this, and the one thing I disagree with you on. My presentation above on Nuns being brides of Christ in a special way, is still of course by participation, as you have also stated, and which you agree that Nuns do to a greater extent than other women religious.

 

I will give this example again, as I move into this next point... As I quoted her there in #116 (from a particular line I remember in her writings, though there are many more like this) Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity felt the call to become a bride of Christ and responded to that by becoming a Discalced Carmelite Nun (which did not the Rite of CV & most of which do not have today). Being a bride of Christ was central to her identity, which one can see by reading her writings, including, but not limited to, the well known piece here, http://www.carmelofmary.org/brideofchrist.html

 

So my second point (which I will post separately) is that when women make a total gift of themselves to God it is spousal in nature, by participation as members of His Church - and that their individual relationship with Christ can be spousal.

 

Regarding all of this though, I am still open to these ideas being wrong and am still trying to understand.

 

 

p.s. that was a long post! & only part 1 

Edited July 25, 2013 by Chiquitunga

[abrideofChrist]

Egeria and Lillibette, welcome to the thread! 

 

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion at hand!  They have been very helpful in advancing an understanding of the vocation [kidding!].  I don't intentionally model my responses after the style of St. Jerome, but I rather suspect the people he exchanged thoughts with were more concerned over the substance of his epistles than over his well known abrasive tone.  I have never seen evidence in the stories I have read about him that people were concerned that his formation as a priest and hermit was lacking because of his style of writing.

 

I had requested that we actually engage in a productive and fruitful conversation furthering the original topic of what it means to be a bride of Christ rather than directing our efforts to attributing emotions and tone as Laurie so eloquently put it in post 142.  I appreciated the fact that one person took the trouble of communicating with me by PM over what she thought was slightly rude in a post.  That was an appropriate channel for such a communication.  Again, I would like to invite people who can, as Laurie wrote so well, be able to take criticism for the positions that they hold recognizing that it is not a personal attack but an exchange of ideas amongst open minded persons who seek the truth. 

 

I just want to inform people in advance that any further personal attacks will probably not be responded to by me because I really do want to keep to the topic of this thread and not clutter it up even more just because some people want to turn it into an opportunity to discredit my position by bashing my reputation.  Again, to those who want to keep this open for an honest dialogue, thank you.

[Chiquitunga]

Okay, part two was just completely erased.......  I don't think I can go through typing it all out again. Here was the point I was trying to make.

 

2) that when women make a total gift of themselves to God, it is spousal in nature, by participation in His Church - and that their individual relationship with Christ can be spousal

 

I believe the root of the issue I had here ( #113) and the two following posts, was that I am having a hard time understanding how a woman can make a total gift of herself to God in a non-spousal way, but rather as a disciple.

 

 

In Mulieris Dignitatem: On Dignity and Vocation of Women John Paul II speaks of two dimensions of a woman's vocation - virginity and motherhood.

 

"We must now focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality."

 

 

He also speaks on the "two different paths" of the vocation of women - marriage or virginity. 

 

When he speaks of virginity, it is not in the strict sense. He includes all forms of consecrated life for women. I agree with you in how it is important for the Church now to differentiate between consecrated virginity and the vow of chastity, which are different, especially with the renewal of the vocation of Consecrated Virginity. But the point that I am trying to make here is that John Paul II is saying that all of those ways in which a woman would forsake human marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, have at least some spousal element to them. If it wasn't so, it would seem that one could conclude from what he is saying, that those women then would not be reaching the fulfillment of their vocation as women.

 

(note: I bolded and underlined here, but the italics are from the document at vatican.va)

 

 

"Virginity according to the Gospel means renouncing marriage and thus physical motherhood. Nevertheless, the renunciation of this kind of motherhood, a renunciation that can involve great sacrifice for a woman, makes possible a different kind of motherhood: motherhood "according to the Spirit" (cf. Rom 8:4). For virginity does not deprive a woman of her prerogatives. Spiritual motherhood takes on many different forms. In the life of consecrated women, for example, who live according to the charism and the rules of the various apostolic Institutes, it can express itself as concern for people, especially the most needy: the sick, the handicapped, the abandoned, orphans, the elderly, children, young people, the imprisoned and, in general, people on the edges of society. In this way a consecrated woman finds her Spouse, different and the same in each and every person, according to his very words: "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"(Mt 25:40). Spousal love always involves a special readiness to be poured out for the sake of those who come within one's range of activity. In marriage this readiness, even though open to all, consists mainly in the love that parents give to their children. In virginity this readiness is open to all people, who are embraced by the love of Christ the Spouse.

 

Spousal love - with its maternal potential hidden in the heart of the woman as a virginal bride - when joined to Christ, the Redeemer of each and every person, is also predisposed to being open to each and every person. This is confirmed in the religious communities of apostolic life, and in a different way in communities of contemplative life, or the cloister. There exist still other forms of a vocation to virginity for the sake of the Kingdom; for example, the Secular Institutes, or the communities of consecrated persons which flourish within Movements, Groups and Associations. In all of these the same truth about the spiritual motherhood of virgins is confirmed in various ways. However, it is not only a matter of communal forms but also of non-communal forms. In brief, virginity as a woman's vocation is always the vocation of a person - of a unique, individual person. Therefore the spiritual motherhood which makes itself felt in this vocation is also profoundly personal.

 

This is also the basis of a specific convergence between the virginity of the unmarried woman and the motherhood of the married woman. This convergence moves not only from motherhood towards virginity, as emphasized above; it also moves from virginity towards marriage, the form of woman's vocation in which she becomes a mother by giving birth to her children. The starting point of this second analogy is the meaning of marriage. A woman is "married" either through the sacrament of marriage or spiritually through marriage to Christ. In both cases marriage signifies the "sincere gift of the person" of the bride to the groom. In this way, one can say that the profile of marriage is found spiritually in virginity. And does not physical motherhood also have to be a spiritual motherhood, in order to respond to the whole truth about the human being who is a unity of body and spirit? Thus there exist many reasons for discerning in these two different paths - the two different vocations of women - a profound complementarity, and even a profound union within a person's being."

 

 

Finally, the second part to this point is - therefore I believe a woman religious would have a spousal relationship with Christ (by participation in His Church) I do not think one can say that anyone cannot have a spousal relationship with Our Lord, if the individual soul can also be a bride of Christ (again by being a member of His Church). I think my question is, what then does the common sponsality mean for the individual soul's relationship with Christ? I believe the answer is that each soul can have an interior spousal relationship with Him, and especially for women who have forsaken human marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, though not in the same way as Consecrated Virgins.

 

 

[Egeria]

AbrideofChrist, your response basically proves my (and Lilllabettt's) point. But if you are not able to see that it's not my intention to argue about it.

 

Oh, and appealing to St Jerome doesn't really carry much weight with me, notwithstanding his major contribution to biblical scholarship. I don't have the book with me so I can't check it, but I think that it was Peter Brown in The Body and Society who suggested that he'd never really understood the desert tradition. As the early Fathers repeatedly taught, the only virtue that the demons cannot emulate is that of humility. Without that no argument is worth listening to. Peace be with you and good bye.

[Lilllabettt]

Egeria and Lillibette, welcome to the thread! 

 

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion at hand!  They have been very helpful in advancing an understanding of the vocation [kidding!].  I don't intentionally model my responses after the style of St. Jerome, but I rather suspect the people he exchanged thoughts with were more concerned over the substance of his epistles than over his well known abrasive tone.  I have never seen evidence in the stories I have read about him that people were concerned that his formation as a priest and hermit was lacking because of his style of writing.

 

I had requested that we actually engage in a productive and fruitful conversation furthering the original topic of what it means to be a bride of Christ rather than directing our efforts to attributing emotions and tone as Laurie so eloquently put it in post 142.  I appreciated the fact that one person took the trouble of communicating with me by PM over what she thought was slightly rude in a post.  That was an appropriate channel for such a communication.  Again, I would like to invite people who can, as Laurie wrote so well, be able to take criticism for the positions that they hold recognizing that it is not a personal attack but an exchange of ideas amongst open minded persons who seek the truth. 

 

I just want to inform people in advance that any further personal attacks will probably not be responded to by me because I really do want to keep to the topic of this thread and not clutter it up even more just because some people want to turn it into an opportunity to discredit my position by bashing my reputation.  Again, to those who want to keep this open for an honest dialogue, thank you.

 

The abrasiveness with which St. Jerome sometimes addressed people and subjects was a fault of his which had to be burnt away by the Holy Spirit. Arguments in the letters of doctors of theology and scripture are one thing. What goes on the internet is public to the whole world.

 

The impression you are leaving on people here has been addressed to you several times before this, but you continue going on as you have before. Addressing it publicly doesn't seem uncalled for.

 

Sarcasm is unbecoming of a consecrated person. That is something I fell into often as a Sister, but it was part of my formation to learn to limit its use and apply as much discretion as possible. 

 

There is also something I was taught in formation: those who are incorrect, morally or intellectually, are only helped further down the wrong road by poorly executed correction. If you cannot correct people with patience and charity, you should not do it.