Bride Of Christ

[Chiquitunga]

not to overwhelm you with more posts and questions, abride, but is this the book you had made reference to earlier in the thread? http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/B0007EFRKM  I couldn't find it via bookfinder.com and a few other places, but I did see it is at a library not far from me, so I may try to see about checking it out  :like:

[abrideofChrist]

not to overwhelm you with more posts and questions, abride, but is this the book you had made reference to earlier in the thread? http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/B0007EFRKM  I couldn't find it via bookfinder.com and a few other places, but I did see it is at a library not far from me, so I may try to see about checking it out  :like:

 

Yes.  That is the book.  It is quoted in some USACV materials and at least one of the more recent newsletters.  It's hard to find.  Let us know if you have any luck finding and reading it.
 

[Ima Lurker]

First of all, thank you, Chiquitunga, for resurrecting this old post. What a beautiful vocation, and one I knew very little about before reading here.

 

As a former Contemplative Nun, I had not heard of this vocation or known of it's distinctions. It would have been nice to know as I feel I could have made a better informed decision, while I don't think my course of action would have changed, I do like knowing my options before pursuing any life changing decisions. 

 

I just had a couple of thoughts, perhaps someone might find useful. First off, as a novice, I sometimes felt worried that because I couldn't be a priest, my gift was somehow not good enough for God. I know that He values gifts differently just from reading the Book of Genesis where Cain and Abel leave their offerings. Reverend Mother really helped me through my feelings of insecurity by pointing out that we all are called by God to be holy according to our lifestyles. That He loves us completely with an intensity that we'll never fully grasp. That we can't all have fantastic revelations and visits from heaven with amazing messages, that we can't measure the love that God has for us by the job He has called us to do, and that our gift is not necessarily frowned upon just because we feel like we didn't give as much or the same as others have been called to do.

 

I am a mom, I will never be a consecrated virgin. I have health problems, so there are a number of jobs I can't have as a result. I am grateful to learn about this vocation because, a) God has given us women who visibly represent the Church Herself and  b) because I have 3 young daughters and when they begin to discern, if they want to ask me questions, I can be in a better position to answer them or direct them to a better source such as Phatmass, for instance.

 

There are some here, it seems, who worry that drawing a clearer distinction will somehow diminish the gift that our Religious give to God but we need clear definitions, clear terms. For instance, one of my pagan friends thought that Catholics call it the Assumption of Mary because we assume she's in heaven! Another friend who wasn't any particular faith, thought the New Testament was simply a revision of the Old! And it really helps to understand the faith that we are called to defend!

 

This has been fascinating to read, I was under the impression that all these vocations were the same in that each was a perfect representation and that every religious who is a virgin, is a consecrated virgin, yet how shocking to learn that there are Nuns who are also consecrated Virgins! But not all of them!!

 

Again, sorry this is so wordy, thank you for the consideration of reading, and for each person who has participated in this discussion. I'm going to fade back into the shadows now.

 

Peace and prayers.

 

[abrideofChrist]

 

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...

 

 

I think Verbi Sponsa is another good defense of this. 

 

 

 

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 

 

 

Hi Chiquitonga!  Thank you for continuing this very open minded discourse and for reopening this subject. 

 

Let me be sure that I actually understand where you are coming from.  It seems like we are really on the same page except that you are not entirely comfortable with the idea that nuns who are not CVs should not be called brides of Christ.  Is that correct?  Again, I think that this what you are trying to express and I just want to double check because I understand how frustrating it can be to be misunderstood.

 

It is certainly true that cloistered nuns represent the Church better than other forms of religious life and are more suited to being called brides of Christ for the reasons we both accept as true.  What I am concerned with, though, is that people who are discerning the vocation to being a cloistered nun will confuse the greater participation aspect for the full representation of the Church as bride and miss the beauty of religious life for what it actually is.  Certainly when I was discerning the vocation to  a cloistered community (and active communities), I really thought that nuns and sisters were brides of Christ in the fullest sense.  I didn't know any better when I first began to think of religious life as a possible vocation for me. 

 

Most of the religious communities I was interested in joining told me that by becoming a sister or a nun, I would be the bride of Jesus.  I was unpleasantly surprised to find out that this was not strictly true and being a painful thing to hear, I struggled with it for a long time.  I finally realized that if I had a religious vocation, that unless I found a community that did the consecration, I would be totally given over to the Lord, but just not in a fully spousal manner.  it would have been a lot more helpful if I had known that religious life was not fully spousal to begin with and had not been fooled into thinking it was because of what all the sisters and nuns were telling me.  I don't think they were trying to deliberately mislead me because what they were telling me they believed because that is what they had been told.  But what I feel you are trying to ask for is that they continue to call themselves brides of Christ even though it sets people up for the same problem that I experienced. 

 

I don't think I am the only person who wants to know the truth.  I think that it is easier to be told upfront that nuns share in the Church's bridal nature more fully than most other people do, but that there is a vocation compatible with religious life that does make a woman the bride of Christ in the full sense of the word.  Can you see the dilemma here?  That if we use the term bride of Christ for non CV nuns, then we give people the impression that they do achieve the full nuptial union with Christ by religious profession.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Okay I'm back. I was hoping to research ontological change today, but it turns out I don't have much time and would need to do that tomorrow. Whenever I tried researching it, I could only find information about priests, so I'll need to change my wording a bit or look at specific sources.

 

I was thinking today more about the ideas.

 

So far, AbrideofChrist has provided support for the idea that CVs are brides of Christ in a distinct way. Among the points, were the following:

- the Rite and the explanation of the Rite make it clear that they are brides of Christ

- the Consecration is included in some religious orders, indicating that it's not identical to the vows

- the fact that there are religious brothers points to the idea that their vocation is similar to religious sisters, and monks can't really be called brides of Christ unless we're just talking about them being part of the Church, the Bride.

 

Then we have other points, for example some of them brought up by Chiquitunga, that show how nuns have been understood to be brides of Christ in the Church as well:

- Saints who felt drawn to being brides of Christ, were called to orders like the Carmelites, which didn't do the Consecration. It would be presumptious to question their vocation to that order. Saints or Blessseds or others who lived holy lives, such as St Therese of Lisieux, Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity, Sr Josefa Menendez, and others, referred to themselves as brides of Christ in relation to entering the convent.

- Saints and authors like St Alphonsus Liguori or (if I understood correctly) Fr Thomas Dubay, refer to religious as having a spousal relationship with Our Lord. One example of such a work is the True Spouse of Jesus Christ by St Alphonsus Liguori: http://archive.org/stream/thecompleteascet01grimuoft/thecompleteascet01grimuoft_djvu.txt

- Church documents mentioning phrases that indicate a bridal relationship with God, for nuns (Verbi Sponsa)

- spousal language in at least some of the Rites for religious profession

 

How do we understand the above points? I dont' think that we should just disregard them... they indicate that the Church and Saints have looked at religious life as having a spousal component. How do we understand them together with what AbrideofChrist has described about the vocation to Consecrated Virginity?

Edited July 25, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

Continued.

 

I have a friend who is one of the nicest women you could know.  She was an Army or Air Force officer.  She could have been a poster child for the armed forces.  The thing though, was that she was not fully a member of the armed forces in the way we assume it to be.  She was a civilian officer and did civilian support for the armed forces.  She will never go to war (and I don't know if she is still working for them).  When we first think of an armed forces officer, we think of armed personnel- or at least I do, having had lots of people in my clan and family tree involved in the different branches.  If the civilian branches were to advertise as the full blown armed variety, only for recruits to find out that they were not going to go to battle, I would feel very badly for the recruits.  There's nothing wrong in being the civilian support, but the essence of an armed officer and a civilian officer is different.  Both are equally part of the armed forces, both have command and equal ranks, but one more fully epitomizes or encapsulates what being a soldier or squadron member is.  You can apply this to religious nuns and consecrated virgins.  Both receive a consecration, both vocations are equally consecrated, but one represents the Church as a bride fully and the other to a much lesser degree.  This doesn't go against the dignity of either- we need both forms.

[Laurie]

 

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.

 

 

But, Lillabett, this comes across like a reprimand. It comes across like you think you have a right and duty to correct ABRIDEOFCHRIST privately and have her agree with and comply with your correction.

 

If you decided in the past to contact her privately, that's your business. How she decided to interpret and react to your opinion/correction is her business.

 

It sounds like you've decided that because she didn't follow your input about what you think her tone, or behavior, should or should not consist of, you think you are now in a position to publicly reprimand her.

 

If you don't like the personality/style/incarnate being of someone posting here, you could stop interacting with that specific person. If you discern someone's points aren't worth addressing, you could just stop addressing that person. A brief explanation for why you are bowing out of the conversation might be relevant, depending on the situation. But to pop up every once in awhile, aggravated that someone else is who she is and not as you'd like her to be, comes across as silly.

[Laurie]

First of all, thank you, Chiquitunga, for resurrecting this old post. What a beautiful vocation, and one I knew very little about before reading here.

 

As a former Contemplative Nun, I had not heard of this vocation or known of it's distinctions. It would have been nice to know as I feel I could have made a better informed decision, while I don't think my course of action would have changed, I do like knowing my options before pursuing any life changing decisions. 

 

I just had a couple of thoughts, perhaps someone might find useful. First off, as a novice, I sometimes felt worried that because I couldn't be a priest, my gift was somehow not good enough for God. I know that He values gifts differently just from reading the Book of Genesis where Cain and Abel leave their offerings. Reverend Mother really helped me through my feelings of insecurity by pointing out that we all are called by God to be holy according to our lifestyles. That He loves us completely with an intensity that we'll never fully grasp. That we can't all have fantastic revelations and visits from heaven with amazing messages, that we can't measure the love that God has for us by the job He has called us to do, and that our gift is not necessarily frowned upon just because we feel like we didn't give as much or the same as others have been called to do.

 

I am a mom, I will never be a consecrated virgin. I have health problems, so there are a number of jobs I can't have as a result. I am grateful to learn about this vocation because, a) God has given us women who visibly represent the Church Herself and  b) because I have 3 young daughters and when they begin to discern, if they want to ask me questions, I can be in a better position to answer them or direct them to a better source such as Phatmass, for instance.

 

There are some here, it seems, who worry that drawing a clearer distinction will somehow diminish the gift that our Religious give to God but we need clear definitions, clear terms. For instance, one of my pagan friends thought that Catholics call it the Assumption of Mary because we assume she's in heaven! Another friend who wasn't any particular faith, thought the New Testament was simply a revision of the Old! And it really helps to understand the faith that we are called to defend!

 

This has been fascinating to read, I was under the impression that all these vocations were the same in that each was a perfect representation and that every religious who is a virgin, is a consecrated virgin, yet how shocking to learn that there are Nuns who are also consecrated Virgins! But not all of them!!

 

Again, sorry this is so wordy, thank you for the consideration of reading, and for each person who has participated in this discussion. I'm going to fade back into the shadows now.

 

Peace and prayers.

 

Ima, thanks for lurking! Prayers for you & yours.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

But, Lillabett, this comes across like a reprimand. It comes across like you think you have a right and duty to correct ABRIDEOFCHRIST privately and have her agree with and comply with your correction.

 

If you decided in the past to contact her privately, that's your business. How she decided to interpret and react to your opinion/correction is her business.

 

It sounds like you've decided that because she didn't follow your input about what you think her tone, or behavior, should or should not consist of, you think you are now in a position to publicly reprimand her.

 

If you don't like the personality/style/incarnate being of someone posting here, you could stop interacting with that specific person. If you discern someone's points aren't worth addressing, you could just stop addressing that person. A brief explanation for why you are bowing out of the conversation might be relevant, depending on the situation. But to pop up every once in awhile, aggravated that someone else is who she is and not as you'd like her to be, comes across as silly.

 

To me, Lilllabett's post didn't really sound like a reprimand. I also don’t think the occasional calls for a more respectful tone in this and other threads are really out of line here.

 

Even if we charitably assume that abrideofChrist doesn’t really mean to come across this way, she often does sound like she means to mock, belittle, and humiliate those who honestly disagree with her. (Sometimes it even seems like her criticisms could almost be taken as borderline slanderous—like comparing those who would call nuns “brides of Christ” to gay marriage supporters, or insinuating that Sr. Mary Catharine is unfamiliar with St. Thomas Aquinas.)

 

If it’s acceptable for abrideofChrist to take it upon herself to correct other people so boldly, why isn’t it also acceptable for others here to suggest that she might do well to be a little bit more kind and generous to her interlocutors?

 

I think the vast majority of people posting in VS are sincere Catholics who have a decent grasp on the Church’s teachings, and who are genuinely searching for the truth as well as for God’s will in their own lives. And so, even as a third party, it’s painful to watch abrideofChrist regularly rip other VS-ers apart when they don’t immediately agree with everything she says. 

[Laurie]

To me, Lilllabett's post didn't really sound like a reprimand. I also don’t think the occasional calls for a more respectful tone in this and other threads are really out of line here.

 

Even if we charitably assume that abrideofChrist doesn’t really mean to come across this way, she often does sound like she means to mock, belittle, and humiliate those who honestly disagree with her. (Sometimes it even seems like her criticisms could almost be taken as borderline slanderous—like comparing those who would call nuns “brides of Christ” to gay marriage supporters, or insinuating that Sr. Mary Catharine is unfamiliar with St. Thomas Aquinas.)

 

If it’s acceptable for abrideofChrist to take it upon herself to correct other people so boldly, why isn’t it also acceptable for others here to suggest that she might do well to be a little bit more kind and generous to her interlocutors?

 

I think the vast majority of people posting in VS are sincere Catholics who have a decent grasp on the Church’s teachings, and who are genuinely searching for the truth as well as for God’s will in their own lives. And so, even as a third party, it’s painful to watch abrideofChrist regularly rip other VS-ers apart when they don’t immediately agree with everything she says. 

 

All I can say is, that's not how it comes across to me.

 

From my perspective, I think mock, belittle, and humiliate are very strong words that I would rarely use in describing another person's actions, especially when the conversation has happened online and not in person.

 

I also don't think anyone here has said anything slanderous. One person might use an example someone else doesn't think succeeds in getting the point across.  Slanderous is a very strong word. It's not one I would use lightly.

 

Honestly, I do think (and I'm just going to be brutally frank here) that sometimes devout young Catholics can be too intense. I have a lot of good priest friends that are 5, 10, 15, 20 years older than me. They don't get all twisted up when there is a difference of ideas, or a clash of ideas, even a clash of personalities, or a losing of tempers at times. In the scheme of things, they have enough groundedness and centeredness to let others be who they are without feeling threatened by it or like they need to control the conversation or the tone. (BTW, Sponsa, not saying you are trying to control the tone by your comment above.) I don't see ABC trying to control the tone. I don't see her reprimanding people. I see her saying what she thinks, why she thinks it, in her own style and way.

 

Here's an example: I didn't think ABC was insinuating Sr. Mary Catherine doesn't know Aquinas. I think she was saying if Sr. Mary Catherine was going to quote Aquinas on the current topic, ardently, then to give the full view, she should quote Aquinas on the consecration of virgins.

 

I do rather marvel at the extent to which sometimes, some people here, get offended.

 

I also don't understand why some would come to a thread that ABRIDEOFCHRIST started, of her own accord, if they don't like what she has to say. Okay then. Couldn't they start another thread? No one has to be here. No one has to participate. That's why I said Lillabett's comment came across as a reprimand. This isn't a post she started. ABC started it. So, Lillabett doesn't have to stick around if she consistently doesn't like what ABC has to say or the way she says it.

 

Maybe this will help. Here's the difference I see:

 

1) ABRIDEOFCHRIST gave an illustration of same-sex "couples" using wedding bands and how that could give a false sense of marriage, etc. You can take or leave her example. But it's not personal. It's an example. You might think its a bad example that doesn't prove a point. Then, the thing to do would be to explain why in your view it's not a good example. To just say it is scandalous makes the discussion personal. It's now gone from what someone might think is a bad example to it being a bad example that also impunes the intention/character of the person who gave the example. Why? What's the point in that?

 

2) ABC thought another poster should read Aquinas on consecrated virginity. However she might have delivered that line, it was, again, a comment on the discussion at hand. To use negative adjectives that describe the (hypoethical) intention or attitude of ABC in making her comment is not helpful. (E.g., to say someone needs to be more kind and generous is a judgment about her character.)

 

I also think (buckle your seatbelts, some more brutal frankness coming down the pipe!!) that at times devout Catholics tend to wrap criticisms up in silk blankets, such as "you might not have meant to be a witch, and I'm trying to assume in charity you are not a witch, but you do seem like you are mean, and awful, and gross, and ugly on the inside and that you hate me and want to turn me into a wildebeest." All of the "seems" and "mights" and whatever other lingual cushions are placed in that statement don't make it any more palatable for the one to whom it is addressed.

 

My take is, let's focus on the ideas and worry less about other people's supposed tone/intention. Let's just not engage with those with whom we fundamentally don't agree if the exchange is uncomfortable (for whatever reason).

 

But by all means, if we are going to make a judgment or personal statement, just come right out with it! To my mind, that's more refreshing and palatable than wrapping it in cotton candy. Concrete example: I have concluded you are a witch. Turn me into a wildebeest and you will regret it, WITCH!

 

For what it's worth.

 

(I have a feeling someone is now going to huck a rotten cabbage at me!) But I said what I thought needed to be said. And now everyone is free to take it or leave it, as they like it.

 

I'm not, though, going to go back and forth, and around and around, on this topic. I just don't see the point!

[freedomreigns]

No rotten cabbage here-- but just a thought---which is that consecrated people represent the Church and Christ and therefore should be very careful to be kind.  Believe it or not people will form opinions of the Church from one person's rude comment or one person's loving gesture.  And I do not believe it is only Catholic people who are already rooted in Christ and unable to be sccandalized who read things such as this thread on the internet.      

 

There is a way to speak the truth in love, and also a way to say it in such a way that is biting, and sarcastic.  To run over others with words is a  the quality of our culture-- but we are not to be formed by our culture as Christians.  Just because someone can say something in a clever or scathing way does not mean they should.

 

And for the record...having reread a lot of this thread I can see ABOC's point regarding the essential difference between Consecrated Virginity and Religious Life.  I actually come very close to agreeing with her point.  I do understand that this is a topic that raises emotions in people and that this can make dialogue more difficult.  I don't think sarcasm is the solution, however.  

Edited July 26, 2013 by freedomreigns

[MarysLittleFlower]

No rotten cabbages at anyone :)

 

I only think maybe it's best for us all to stick to the topic, rather than having a discussion about any particular posters.  If there's a concern, maybe it could be moved to private messaging. My concern is that having a discussion about any particular poster, could tempt us to judgement or animosity towards each other, depending on what their views of the poster are. I'm not saying someone has been judgemental, that's not for me to know. I'm only saying it could tempt us to judgement.

 

I understand this is a topic that people feel strongly about, I do as well. I understand people have different ways of talking. I also understand there are people who are edified by great gentleness in speech: of course, that is edifying. I also understand it's the internet and we don't know how posters feel when they're writing, - hey even in real life it's often hard to tell. :) maybe we could all just leave this situation to God :)  

 

 

Edited July 26, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Freedomreigns, I think it's funny how you also used the 'rotten cabbage' expression and I only saw your post after I posted mine :P

[Laurie]

No rotten cabbages at anyone :)

 

I only think maybe it's best for us all to stick to the topic, rather than having a discussion about any particular posters.  If there's a concern, maybe it could be moved to private messaging. My concern is that having a discussion about any particular poster, could tempt us to judgement or animosity towards each other, depending on what their views of the poster are. I'm not saying someone has been judgemental, that's not for me to know. I'm only saying it could tempt us to judgement.

 

I understand this is a topic that people feel strongly about, I do as well. I understand people have different ways of talking. I also understand there are people who are edified by great gentleness in speech: of course, that is edifying. I also understand it's the internet and we don't know how posters feel when they're writing, - hey even in real life it's often hard to tell. :) maybe we could all just leave this situation to God :)  

 

MLM, I think that's an excellent point. Lillabett, I'm sorry, I should have shot you a private message. Feel free to ignore my post since I didn't send it privately as I should have.
 

[Marie Villalovos Smith]

I don't know if this will help anyone who may be interested in becoming a CV, but EWTN has this on their web site and it seems pretty clear. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CONSVIRG.htm

 

 

What is the Consecration of a Virgin?

The Consecration of a Virgin is one of the oldest sacramentals in the Church, and one of the fruits of Vatican II was the restoration of this profound blessing on virgins living in the world. The promulgation of this restored Rite for laywomen was on 31 May 1970. Through this sacramental, the virgin, after renewing her promise of perpetual virginity to God, is set aside as a sacred person who belongs only to Christ.

The acting agent in the Consecration is God Himself who accepts the virgin's promise and spiritually fructifies it through the action of the Holy Spirit.

This sacramental is reserved to the Bishop of the diocese. The consecrated virgin shares intimately in the nature and mission of the Church--she is a living image of the Church's love for her Spouse while sharing in His redemptive mission.

The consecrated virgin living in the world embodies a definitive vocation in itself. She is not a quasi-Religious, nor is she in a vocation that is in the process of becoming a Religious institute or congregation. She is a consecrated woman, nevertheless, with her bishop as her guide. By virtue of the Consecration, she is responsible to pray for her diocese and clergy. At no time is her diocese responsible for her financial support.

The consecrated virgin living in the world, as expressed in Canon 604, is irrevocably "consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan bishop consecrates [her] according to the approved liturgical rite." The consecrated virgin attends Mass daily, prays the Divine Office, and spends much time in private prayer. She can choose the Church-approved spirituality she prefers to follow.

Supporting herself by earning her own living, the consecrated virgin is not obliged to take on any particular work or apostolate. Usually, consecrated virgins in the United States volunteer their time to their local parish, diocese, or Church-sponsored association. Some volunteer their time also in civic responsibilities.

Who can be consecrated?

A woman living in the world who has never married or lived in open violation of chastity, and who by age, prudence, and good character is deemed suitable for dedicating herself to a life of chastity in the service of the Church and of her neighbor may petition her bishop to receive the Consecration. She must be admitted to this Consecration by her local Bishop; it is he who determines the conditions under which the candidate is to undertake a life of perpetual virginity lived in the world. Usually, a woman who aspires to the consecration works with a spiritual director and has lived a private promise of perpetual virginity for some years before seeking the Consecration of a Virgin.

It is understood that a laywoman aspiring to the Consecration of a Virgin is able to support herself by work or pension or independent means and has provided financially for her medical care.

A woman aspiring to the Consecration should be practicing her faith. She accepts the teaching of the Church and Sacred Scripture, with a readiness and capacity for personal growth. She should be able to give herself totally to God and the Church.

For further information, contact:

Judith M. Stegman
300 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48933

email: president@consecratedvirgins.org

 

Pax...