Bride Of Christ

[Chiquitunga]

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.

 

Thank you for this reply, abrideofChrist! Let me reflect on this a little more but offering any thoughts... :pray:

[abrideofChrist]

Sr. Mary Catherine made a  pertinent observation on the difference between consecrated virginity and religious life in the other thread here http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130504-questions-about-consecrated-virginity/?p=2610837 .  What she said about religious is important because it highlights why priests and brothers and sisters and nuns and CVs can be religious.  However, it would be very helpful for us if she would kindly link us to what St. Thomas has to say about "consecrated virginity" as distinct from the virtue of virginity. 

Edited July 26, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

I actually do agree with a lot of abrideofChrist’s arguments here, but I personally have a very hard time saying that women like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Clare of Assisi, St. Kateri Tekakwitha, or Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta weren’t really brides of Christ because they weren’t technically consecrated virgins.

 

I think that the whole reality of a call to be a bride of Christ—that is, the call that some women experience to give themselves entirely to God in such a way that this all-consuming love precludes the spiritual and emotional possibility of an earthly marriage—is ultimately a much bigger and more mysterious thing than simply a matter of whether or not a woman has received the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity.

 

I think that the consecration of virgins is a very special, privileged expression of this more general call. I would even be comfortable saying that it might be the normative expression. I’m also comfortable saying that religious profession by itself isn’t the same thing as a call to be a bride of Christ. But I think that it’s entirely possible that any woman who has offered her life entirely to the Lord could be a spouse of Christ in actual fact, even if canon law doesn’t specifically grant her that title.

 

I do believe that the Rite of Consecration has a real efficacy, or in other words, that it really does do something. Still, I do think that we can allow for the possibility that God might extend His grace beyond His promises in this instance. (After all, even in earthly marriages, it is possible to get a dispensation of form!)

 

One consequence (among others) of the Rite of Consecration is that through it, the Church lets us know for sure who definitely is a bride of Christ. But, I don’t think this translates into the Church conversely letting us say that someone else is definitely NOT a bride of Christ. Even when it’s a case of a woman just making a private vow, I think we need to be respectful and reverent towards the wonders that our Lord might be working in an individual soul…I keep thinking of the old saying: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

 

(Not trying to call anyone here a fool, BTW.)

[Sponsa-Christi]

double post, sorry.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

double post, sorry.

 

My question to you, Sponsa Christi, is whether a man who has a very priestly spirituality can be a priest of God without ordination and have God by-pass this normal way of having that indelible mark set on his soul?  Should we consider some of the great male saints and speculate that they were actually priests?  It's not that God can't act outside the normal channels, the real question at hand is what is at the essence of this vocation and how is it normally attained? 

Edited July 26, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

While I think highlighting the parallels and complementarity between priesthood and consecrated virginity generally works exceedingly well in trying to explain and understand this vocation, I think there are a few places where the analogy breaks down—and that this is one of those places.

 

The analogy still works when you consider that man who doesn’t receive Holy Orders isn’t a priest, and a woman who doesn’t receive the consecration of virgins isn’t a consecrated virgin, and that no level of personal spirituality is going to change this.

 

But, I think you can make somewhat of a distinction between the call to be a bride of Christ and the call to be a consecrated virgin technically speaking. All consecrated virgins are called to be brides of Christ, but I think there could be some brides of Christ who weren’t called to be consecrated virgins. (Kind of like: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.)

 

I think that the general call to be a bride of Christ is a very mysterious mystical reality that we’re never going to be able to define and “pin down” in the same way as the consecration of virgins, religious profession, Holy Orders, or matrimony. I think it’s actually too mysterious for canon law even to try to touch.

 

I believe that the general call to be a bride of Christ is a charism and a special grace that God gives directly to some souls, according to His good pleasure. Sometimes this charism is directly manifested and confirmed through the Rite of Consecration; sometimes it might be expressed in a more indirect secondary way through religious profession. Other times, it might remain more mysterious and hidden in a woman who simply makes a private vow.

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, while I know that you are studying canon law from your blog, I am not basing my position off of canon law.  My original posts cited theologians such as Fr. Thomas Dubay, The Rite of Consecration, & The Rite of Religious Profession, Bugnini, and others.  That you want to have everything neatly defined by canon law is not my problem because I'm not looking to canon law to treat on this subject of what it means to be Bride of Christ.  I actually like how Fr. Dubay characterized the different ways by which a person could participate in being called the Bride of Christ.  It makes sense.  While I acknowledge that his analysis is not canon law, again, I have never tried to appeal to canon law.  Why should I appeal to canon law when canon law only has two paragraphs on this vocation? 

 

Here's a difference I've noticed between your approach and that of many others who have contributed to some of these Phatmass threads on our vocation. First, you only acknowledge a handful of texts as "authoritative" (cf. your blog) and refuse to acknowledge other experts such as Cardinal Burke because they were not proclaimed dogmatically or penned by the Pope.  This is not helpful to our readers because over the two thousand years or so of the vocation's existence, many top ranked theologians have devoted their efforts to explaining the vocation.  I would expect someone who wishes to be an expert on this vocation to actually do serious research and not limit themselves to dogmatic pronouncements.  Others, for example, have cited sources and documents which contribute to the Church's tradition and understanding of the vocation that are not from the early centuries of the Church and more accessible to us in our modern era.

 

Second, other authors have been very careful to delineate differences between consecrated virginity and religious life and mystical union and the soul's fundamental characteristic as "bride" as a member of the Church.  Your approach has been different.  Since you only depend on a limited amount of documents, you want to try to de-mystify or even to attribute to mystery the nature of what it means to be a Bride of Christ so as not to build on the scholarship of others, including some of the scholastic saints.  It is not helpful to appeal to the mystery of the Church as a reason for not making definitions when simpler and clearer definitions can be had.  It is, however, quite helpful if one wants to dogmatically teach anything about it, and say that this is what is "implicit" in the Rite without actually going to the sources of what shaped or formed the Rite.

 

Third, I don't understand how your position actually fits in with what I have said.  How do you argue against Dubay's characterizations of what it means to be a bride of Christ?  Or, the Dominican Father who was quoted by Laurie in his definition of consecrated virginity?  It's easy enough to say what you like when you don't have to demonstrate how it lines up with what I have posted previously.  But that doesn't bring the conversation forward, does it?  Again, I invite you to consider how to discuss this vocation and your position in the framework already provided in the earlier posts. Would another concrete example of this point help?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Has Cardinal Burke commented about whether religious are brides of Christ?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I was looking at the other recent thread about Consecrated Virginity, and Sr Mary Catharine mentioned how in religious life, the person makes the vows and then is consecrated by God. (While with Consecrated Virginity, the Consecration is obviously also done by God, but through the words of the Bishop). Could this somehow relate to the topic? When a person is consecrated as a nun, what does this mean?

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm reading some Church documents on religious life for more information. I'll post relevant quotes so we can maybe discuss what they mean :) I'm underlining the parts mentioning the spousal component of religious life so they can be easily found. Here's a quote from Vita Consecrata:

 

"In Spiritu": consecrated by the Holy Spirit

19. "A bright cloud overshadowed them" (Mt 17:5). A significant spiritual interpretation of the Transfiguration sees this cloud as an image of the Holy Spirit.Like the whole of Christian life, the call to the consecrated life is closely linked to the working of the Holy Spirit. In every age, the Spirit enables new men and women to recognize the appeal of such a demanding choice. Through his power, they relive, in a way, the experience of the Prophet Jeremiah: "You have seduced me, Lord, and I have let myself be seduced" (Jer 20:7). It is the Spirit who awakens the desire to respond fully; it is he who guides the growth of this desire, helping it to mature into a positive response and sustaining it as it is faithfully translated into action; it is he who shapes and moulds the hearts of those who are called, configuring them to Christ, the chaste, poor and obedient One, and prompting them to make his mission their own. By allowing themselves to be guided by the Spirit on an endless journey of purification, they become, day after day, conformed to Christ, the prolongation in history of a special presence of the Risen Lord. With penetrating insight, the Fathers of the Church have called this spiritual path philokalia, or love of the divine beauty, which is the reflection of the divine goodness. Those who by the power of the Holy Spirit are led progressively into full configuration to Christ reflect in themselves a ray of the unapproachable light. During their earthly pilgrimage, they press on towards the inexhaustible Source of light. The consecrated life thus becomes a particularly profound expression of the Church as the Bride who, prompted by the Spirit to imitate her Spouse, stands before him "in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).The same Spirit, far from removing from the life of humanity those whom the Father has called, puts them at the service of their brothers and sisters in accordance with their particular state of life, and inspires them to undertake special tasks in response to the needs of the Church and the world, by means of the charisms proper to the various Institutes. Hence many different forms of the consecrated life have arisen, whereby the Church is "adorned by the various gifts of her children ... like a bride made beautiful for her spouse (cf. Rev 21:2)"and is enriched by the means necessary for carrying out her mission in the world.

 

...

 

The living image of the Church as Bride

34. In the consecrated life, particular importance attaches to the spousal meaning, which recalls the Church's duty to be completely and exclusively devoted to her Spouse, from whom she receives every good thing. This spousal dimension, which is part of all consecrated life, has a particular meaning for women, who find therein their feminine identity and as it were discover the special genius of their relationship with the Lord.

A moving sign of this is seen in the New Testament passage which portrays Mary with the Apostles in the Upper Room, in prayerful expectation of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:13-14). We can see here a vivid image of the Church as Bride, fully attentive to her Bridegroom and ready to accept his gift. In Peter and the other Apostles there emerges above all the aspect of fruitfulness, as it is expressed in ecclesial ministry, which becomes an instrument of the Spirit for bringing new sons and daughters to birth through the preaching of the word, the celebration of the Sacraments and the giving of pastoral care. In Mary the aspect of spousal receptivity is particularly clear; it is under this aspect that the Church, through her perfect virginal life, brings divine life to fruition within herself. The consecrated life has always been seen primarily in terms of Mary — Virgin and Bride. This virginal love is the source of a particular fruitfulness which fosters the birth and growth of divine life in people's hearts. Following in the footsteps of Mary, the New Eve, consecrated persons express their spiritual fruitfulness by becoming receptive to the Word, in order to contribute to the growth of a new humanity by their unconditional dedication and their living witness. Thus the Church fully reveals her motherhood both in the communication of divine grace entrusted to Peter and in the responsible acceptance of God's gift, exemplified by Mary. God's people, for their part, find in the ordained ministry the means of salvation, and in the consecrated life the incentive to make a full and loving response through all the different forms of Christian service.

 

Cloistered nuns

59. The monastic life of women and the cloister deserve special attention because of the great esteem in which the Christian community holds this type of life, which is a sign of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with her Lord, whom she loves above all things. Indeed, the life of cloistered nuns, devoted in a special way to prayer, to asceticism and diligent progress in the spiritual life, "is nothing other than a journey to the heavenly Jerusalem and an anticipation of the eschatological Church immutable in its possession and contemplation of God". In the light of this vocation and ecclesial mission, the cloister responds to the need, felt as paramount, to be with the Lord. Choosing an enclosed space where they will live their lives, cloistered nuns share in Christ's emptying of himself by means of a radical poverty, expressed in their renunciation not only of things but also of "space", of contacts, of so many benefits of creation. This particular way of offering up the "body" allows them to enter more fully into the Eucharistic mystery. They offer themselves with Jesus for the world's salvation. Their offering, besides its elements of sacrifice and expiation, takes on the aspect of thanksgiving to the Father, by sharing in the thanksgiving of the beloved Son.

Rooted in this profound spiritual aspiration, the cloister is not only an ascetic practice of very great value but also a way of living Christ's Passover. From being an experience of "death", it becomes a superabundance of life, representing a joyful proclamation and prophetic anticipation of the possibility offered to every person and to the whole of humanity to live solely for God in Christ Jesus (cf. Rom 6:11). The cloister brings to mind that space in the heart where every person is called to union with the Lord. Accepted as a gift and chosen as a free response of love, the cloister is the place of spiritual communion with God and with the brethren, where the limitation of space and contacts works to the advantage of interiorizing Gospel values (cf. Jn 13:34; Mt 5:3, 8). Even in the simplicity of their life, cloistered communities, set like cities on a hilltop or lights on a lampstand (cf. Mt 5:14-15), visibly represent the goal towards which the entire community of the Church travels. "Eager to act and yet devoted to contemplation", the Church advances down the paths of time with her eyes fixed on the future restoration of all things in Christ, when she will appear "in glory with her Spouse (cf. Col 3:1-4)",and Christ will deliver "the Kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power ... that God may be everything to everyone" (1 Cor 15:24, 28).To these dear Sisters, therefore, I extend my gratitude and I encourage them to remain faithful to the cloistered life according to their particular charism. Thanks to their example, this way of life continues to draw many vocations, attracting people by the radical nature of a "spousal" existence dedicated totally to God in contemplation. As an expression of pure love which is worth more than any work, the contemplative life generates an extraordinary apostolic and missionary effectiveness. The Synod Fathers expressed great esteem for the cloistered life, while at the same time giving attention to requests made by some with respect to its concrete discipline. The Synod's suggestions in this regard and especially the desire that provision be made for giving Major Superiors more authority to grant dispensations from enclosure for just and sufficient reasons, will be carefully considered, in the light of the path of renewal already undertaken since the Second Vatican Council. In this way, the various forms and degrees of cloister — from papal and constitutional cloister to monastic cloister — will better correspond to the variety of contemplative Institutes and monastic traditions. As the Synod itself emphasized, associations and federations of monasteries are to be encouraged, as already recommended by Pope Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council, especially where there are no other effective forms of coordination or help, with a view to safeguarding and promoting the values of contemplative life. Such bodies, which must always respect the legitimate autonomy of monasteries, can in fact offer valuable help in adequately resolving common problems, such as appropriate renewal, initial and continuing formation, mutual economic support and even the reorganization of the monasteries themselves.

 

http://www.rc.net/australia/aprel/VitaCons.ecrata.htm

 

Any thoughts???

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, while I know that you are studying canon law from your blog, I am not basing my position off of canon law.  My original posts cited theologians such as Fr. Thomas Dubay, The Rite of Consecration, & The Rite of Religious Profession, Bugnini, and others.  That you want to have everything neatly defined by canon law is not my problem because I'm not looking to canon law to treat on this subject of what it means to be Bride of Christ.  I actually like how Fr. Dubay characterized the different ways by which a person could participate in being called the Bride of Christ.  It makes sense.  While I acknowledge that his analysis is not canon law, again, I have never tried to appeal to canon law.  Why should I appeal to canon law when canon law only has two paragraphs on this vocation? 

 

I did mention the words "canon law" in my last post, but this does not mean that I was actually appealing to canon law. My whole point was that I think the essential reality of being a bride of Christ is a mystical grace which ultimately can NOT be defined in juridical or canonical terms.

 

 

 

Here's a difference I've noticed between your approach and that of many others who have contributed to some of these Phatmass threads on our vocation. First, you only acknowledge a handful of texts as "authoritative" (cf. your blog) and refuse to acknowledge other experts such as Cardinal Burke because they were not proclaimed dogmatically or penned by the Pope.  This is not helpful to our readers because over the two thousand years or so of the vocation's existence, many top ranked theologians have devoted their efforts to explaining the vocation.  I would expect someone who wishes to be an expert on this vocation to actually do serious research and not limit themselves to dogmatic pronouncements.  Others, for example, have cited sources and documents which contribute to the Church's tradition and understanding of the vocation that are not from the early centuries of the Church and more accessible to us in our modern era.

 

First, even though you might not have meant it this way, this comes across as sounding a little bit more like a personal attack than a comment which advances the conversation or which addresses the issue at hand. My general approach in the whole body of my writing isn't what is in question here.

 

Also, "authoritative" documents are documents in which the Church is actually speaks for herself--this can take the form of papal pronouncements, but it doesn't always have to. A lot of canonists and theologians might have high positions of authority within the Church, but not all their writings are automatically the voice of the Church herself. If a high-ranking cleric writes something which is outside the scope of his actual office, that writing only expresses his personal opinion. Even the Pope can have personal theological or canonical opinions which, even if they are in harmony with what the Church teaches, aren't in an of themselves the teachings of the Church (think of Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" books vs. the encyclical letters he wrote). 

 

Cardinal Burke has never been in a position where he speaks in the voice of the Church herself on questions relating to consecrated virgins. (Even in many of his writings and speeches on consecrated virgins, he has often acknowledged that he is just sharing his expert opinion.) This doesn't mean that we shouldn't take Card. Burke's writings on consecrated virgins seriously, but it does mean that he isn't the last word on the subject. It is possible to disagree with or question Card. Burke's ideas on consecrated virginity in good faith.

 

 

 

Second, other authors have been very careful to delineate differences between consecrated virginity and religious life and mystical union and the soul's fundamental characteristic as "bride" as a member of the Church.  Your approach has been different. 

 

In my last post, I was trying to delineate between these things. I think that the call to be a bride of Christ, while it is most fully and directly expressed in the vocation of consecrated virginity, is ultimately a reality which is distinct from the Rite of Consecration per se. It's also distinct from religious profession, which can (but doesn't always have to) be a less direct and secondary expression of the call to be a bride of Christ. I wasn't addressing at all the idea of mystical union or the general baptismal call to be a "bride."

 

 

 

Your approach has been different.  Since you only depend on a limited amount of documents, you want to try to de-mystify or even to attribute to mystery the nature of what it means to be a Bride of Christ so as not to build on the scholarship of others, including some of the scholastic saints.  It is not helpful to appeal to the mystery of the Church as a reason for not making definitions when simpler and clearer definitions can be had.  It is, however, quite helpful if one wants to dogmatically teach anything about it, and say that this is what is "implicit" in the Rite without actually going to the sources of what shaped or formed the Rite.

 

Once again, this does at least sound like a personal attack. But even apart from that, this wasn't what I was doing in my post. I wasn't trying to de-mystify the idea of what it means to be a bride of Christ, nor was I appealing to the mystery of the Church in order to make things unnecessarily complicated. I also wasn't trying to say what might be implicit in the Rite.

 

 

 

Third, I don't understand how your position actually fits in with what I have said.  How do you argue against Dubay's characterizations of what it means to be a bride of Christ?  Or, the Dominican Father who was quoted by Laurie in his definition of consecrated virginity?  It's easy enough to say what you like when you don't have to demonstrate how it lines up with what I have posted previously.  But that doesn't bring the conversation forward, does it?  Again, I invite you to consider how to discuss this vocation and your position in the framework already provided in the earlier posts. Would another concrete example of this point help?

 

I wasn't trying to respond to any of your specific posts; I was just trying to propose a general solution to some of the questions that keep arising in this thread.

 

I also didn't think I was really disagreeing with Fr. Dubay or Laurie's Dominican Father. The consecration of virgins is indeed an privileged participation in Christ's relationship with His Church; a consecrated virgin is indeed the clearest image of this relationship; and a consecrated virgin truly is a bride of Christ. I'm not disputing any of this. All I was saying is that at times God might also perhaps grant the grace of being a bride Christ to dedicated women who had not actually received the Rite.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, while I know that you are studying canon law from your blog, I am not basing my position off of canon law.  My original posts cited theologians such as Fr. Thomas Dubay, The Rite of Consecration, & The Rite of Religious Profession, Bugnini, and others.  That you want to have everything neatly defined by canon law is not my problem because I'm not looking to canon law to treat on this subject of what it means to be Bride of Christ.  I actually like how Fr. Dubay characterized the different ways by which a person could participate in being called the Bride of Christ.  It makes sense.  While I acknowledge that his analysis is not canon law, again, I have never tried to appeal to canon law.  Why should I appeal to canon law when canon law only has two paragraphs on this vocation? 

 

I did mention the words "canon law" in my last post, but this does not mean that I was actually appealing to canon law. My whole point was that I think the essential reality of being a bride of Christ is a mystical grace which ultimately can NOT be defined in juridical or canonical terms.

 

 

 

Here's a difference I've noticed between your approach and that of many others who have contributed to some of these Phatmass threads on our vocation. First, you only acknowledge a handful of texts as "authoritative" (cf. your blog) and refuse to acknowledge other experts such as Cardinal Burke because they were not proclaimed dogmatically or penned by the Pope.  This is not helpful to our readers because over the two thousand years or so of the vocation's existence, many top ranked theologians have devoted their efforts to explaining the vocation.  I would expect someone who wishes to be an expert on this vocation to actually do serious research and not limit themselves to dogmatic pronouncements.  Others, for example, have cited sources and documents which contribute to the Church's tradition and understanding of the vocation that are not from the early centuries of the Church and more accessible to us in our modern era.

 

First, even though you might not have meant it this way, this comes across as sounding a little bit more like a personal attack than a comment which advances the conversation or which addresses the issue at hand. My general approach in the whole body of my writing isn't what is in question here.

 

Also, "authoritative" documents are documents in which the Church is actually speaks for herself--this can take the form of papal pronouncements, but it doesn't always have to. A lot of canonists and theologians might have high positions of authority within the Church, but not all their writings are automatically the voice of the Church herself. If a high-ranking cleric writes something which is outside the scope of his actual office, that writing only expresses his personal opinion. Even the Pope can have personal theological or canonical opinions which, even if they are in harmony with what the Church teaches, aren't in an of themselves the teachings of the Church (think of Benedict XVI's "Jesus of Nazareth" books vs. the encyclical letters he wrote). 

 

Cardinal Burke has never been in a position where he speaks in the voice of the Church herself on questions relating to consecrated virgins. (Even in many of his writings and speeches on consecrated virgins, he has often acknowledged that he is just sharing his expert opinion.) This doesn't mean that we shouldn't take Card. Burke's writings on consecrated virgins seriously, but it does mean that he isn't the last word on the subject. It is possible to disagree with or question Card. Burke's ideas on consecrated virginity in good faith.

 

 

 

Second, other authors have been very careful to delineate differences between consecrated virginity and religious life and mystical union and the soul's fundamental characteristic as "bride" as a member of the Church.  Your approach has been different. 

 

In my last post, I was trying to delineate between these things. I think that the call to be a bride of Christ, while it is most fully and directly expressed in the vocation of consecrated virginity, is ultimately a reality which is distinct from the Rite of Consecration per se. It's also distinct from religious profession, which can (but doesn't always have to) be a less direct and secondary expression of the call to be a bride of Christ. I wasn't addressing at all the idea of mystical union or the general baptismal call to be a "bride."

 

 

 

Your approach has been different.  Since you only depend on a limited amount of documents, you want to try to de-mystify or even to attribute to mystery the nature of what it means to be a Bride of Christ so as not to build on the scholarship of others, including some of the scholastic saints.  It is not helpful to appeal to the mystery of the Church as a reason for not making definitions when simpler and clearer definitions can be had.  It is, however, quite helpful if one wants to dogmatically teach anything about it, and say that this is what is "implicit" in the Rite without actually going to the sources of what shaped or formed the Rite.

 

Once again, this does at least sound like a personal attack. But even apart from that, this wasn't what I was doing in my post. I wasn't trying to de-mystify the idea of what it means to be a bride of Christ, nor was I appealing to the mystery of the Church in order to make things unnecessarily complicated. I also wasn't trying to say what might be implicit in the Rite.

 

 

 

Third, I don't understand how your position actually fits in with what I have said.  How do you argue against Dubay's characterizations of what it means to be a bride of Christ?  Or, the Dominican Father who was quoted by Laurie in his definition of consecrated virginity?  It's easy enough to say what you like when you don't have to demonstrate how it lines up with what I have posted previously.  But that doesn't bring the conversation forward, does it?  Again, I invite you to consider how to discuss this vocation and your position in the framework already provided in the earlier posts. Would another concrete example of this point help?

 

I wasn't trying to respond to any of your specific posts; I was just trying to propose a general solution to some of the questions that keep arising in this thread.

 

I also didn't think I was really disagreeing with Fr. Dubay or Laurie's Dominican Father. The consecration of virgins is indeed an privileged participation in Christ's relationship with His Church; a consecrated virgin is indeed the clearest image of this relationship; and a consecrated virgin truly is a bride of Christ. I'm not disputing any of this. All I was saying is that at times God might also perhaps grant the grace of being a bride Christ to dedicated women who had not actually received the Rite.

[MarysLittleFlower]

_Chastity

_{11. The paschal character of this call makes itself known from various points of view, in connection with each individual counsel.}

_{It is indeed according to the measure of the economy of the Redemption that one must also judge and practice that chastity which each of you has promised by vow, together with poverty and obedience. There is contained in this the response to Christ's words, which are at the same time an invitation: "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."(57) Prior to this Christ had emphasized: "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given."(58) These last words clearly show that this invitation is a counsel. To this also the Apostle Paul devoted a special reflection in the first letter to the Corinthians.(59) This counsel is addressed in a particular way to the love of the human heart. It places greater emphasis on the spousal character of this love, while poverty and still more obedience seem to emphasize primarily the aspect of redemptive love contained in religious consecration. As you know, it is a question here of chastity in the sense "of making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," a question, that is, of virginity or celibacy as an expression of spousal love for the Redeemer Himself. In this sense the Apostle teaches that they "do well" who choose matrimony but they "do better who choose virginity."(60) The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord,"(61) and "the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit."(62)}

 

A Covenant of Spousal Love

8. Thus, then, dear brothers and sisters, all of you who throughout the Church live the covenant of the profession of the evangelical counsels: renew in this Holy Year of the Redemption your awareness of your special sharing in the Redeemer's death on the cross-that sharing through which you have risen with Him, and continually rise with Him to a new life. The Lord speaks to each of you, just as He once spoke through the prophet Isaiah:

"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name,
you are mine."(30)

The evangelical call: "If you would be perfect, . . .follow me"(31) guides us with the light of the words of the divine Teacher. From the depth of the Redemption there comes Christ's call, and from that depth it reaches the human soul. By virtue of the grace of the Redemption, this saving call assumes, in the soul of the person called, the actual form of the profession of the evangelical counsels. In this form is contained your answer to the call of redeeming love, and it is also an answer of love: a love of self-giving, which is the heart of consecration, of the consecration of the person. The words of Isaiah-"I have redeemed you...you are mine"-seem to seal precisely this love, which is the love of a total and exclusive consecration to God.

This is how the special covenant of spousal love is made, in which we seem to hear an unceasing echo of the words concerning Israel, whom the Lord "has chosen as his own possession." For in every consecrated person the Israel of the new and eternal covenant is chosen. The whole messianic people, the entire Church, is chosen in every person whom the Lord selects from the midst of this people; in every person who is consecrated for everyone to God as His exclusive possession. While it is true that not even the greatest saint can repeat the words of Christ: "For their sake I consecrate myself"(33) in the full force of these words, nevertheless, through self-giving love, through the offering of oneself to God as His exclusive possession, each one can through faith stand within the radius of these words.

Are we not reminded of this by the other words of the Apostle in the letter to the Romans that we so often repeat and meditate upon: "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship"(34)? These words are as it were a distant echo of the One who, when He comes into the world and becomes man, says to the Father: "You have prepared a body for me.... Lo, I have come to do your will, O God."(35)

In this particular context of the Jubilee Year of the Redemption, let us then go back again to the mystery of the body and soul of Christ, as the complete subject of spousal and redemptive love: spousal because it is redemptive. For love He offered Himself, for love He gave His body "for the sin of the world." By immersing yourselves in the Paschal Mystery of the Redeemer through the consecration of the religious vows, you desire, through the love of total giving, to fill your souls and your bodies with the spirit of sacrifice, even as St. Paul invites you to do in the words of the letter to the Romans, just quoted: "to offer your bodies as a sacrifice."(36) In this way the likeness of that love which in the heart of Christ is both redemptive and spousal is imprinted on the religious profession. And such love should fill each of you, dear brothers and sisters, from the very source of that particular consecration which-on the sacramental basis of holy Baptism-is the beginning of your new life in Christ and in the Church: it is the beginning of the new creation.

Together with this love, may there grow deeper in each one of you the joy of belonging exclusively to God, of being a particular inheritance of the most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now and then repeat with the psalmist the inspired words:

"Whom else have I in heaven?
And when I am with you,
the earth delights me not.
Though my flesh and my heart waste away,
God is the rock of my heart
and my portion for ever."(37)

or:

"I say to the Lord, my Lord are you.
Apart from you I have no good.
O Lord, my allotted portion and my cup,
You it is who hold fast my lot."(38)

May the knowledge of belonging to God Himself in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and Spouse of the Church, seal your hearts,(39) all your thoughts, words and deeds, with the sign of the biblical spouse. As you know, this intimate and profound knowledge of Christ is actuated and grows deeper day by day through the life of personal, community and liturgical prayer proper to each of your religious families. In this too, and especially so, the men and women religious who are dedicated essentially to contemplation are a powerful aid and a stimulating support for their brothers and sisters devoted to the works of the apostolate. May this knowledge of belonging to Christ open your hearts, thoughts and deeds-with the key of the mystery of the Redemption to all the sufferings, needs and hopes of individuals and of the world, in the midst of which your evangelical consecration has been planted as a particular sign of the presence of God for whom all live,(40) embraced by the invisible dimension of His kingdom.

The words "Follow me," spoken by Christ when He "looked upon and loved" each one of you, dear brothers and sisters, also have this meaning: you take part, in the most complete and radical way possible, in the shaping of that "new creation"(41) which must emerge from the Redemption of the world by means of the power of the Spirit of Truth operating from the abundance of the Paschal Mystery of Christ.

 

http://www.rc.net/australia/aprel/Redempti.onisDonm.htm

[MarysLittleFlower]

In this wider context, virginity has to be considered also as a path for women, a path on which they realize their womanhood in a way different from marriage. In order to understand this path, it is necessary to refer once more to the fundamental idea of Christian anthropology. By freely choosing virginity, women confirm themselves as persons, as beings whom the Creator from the beginning has willed for their own sake.41 At the same time they realize the personal value of their own femininity by becoming "a sincere gift" for God who has revealed himself in Christ, a gift for Christ, the Redeemer of humanity and the Spouse of souls: a "spousal" gift. One cannot correctly understand virginity - a woman's consecration in virginity - without referring to spousal love. It is through this kind of love that a person becomes a gift for the other.42 Moreover, a man's consecration in priestly celibacy or in the religious state is to be understood analogously.

The naturally spousal predisposition of the feminine personality finds a response in virginity understood in this way. Women, called from the very "beginning" to be loved and to love, in a vocation to virginity find Christ first of all as the Redeemer who "loved until the end" through his total gift of self; and they respond to this gift with a "sincere gift" of their whole lives. They thus give themselves to the divine Spouse, and this personal gift tends to union, which is properly spiritual in character. Through the Holy Spirit's action a woman becomes "one spirit" with Christ the Spouse (cf. 1 Cor 6:17).

This is the evangelical ideal of virginity, in which both the dignity and the vocation of women are realized in a special way. In virginity thus understood the so-called radicalism of the Gospel finds expression: "Leave everything and follow Christ" (cf. Mt 19:27). This cannot be compared to remaining simply unmarried or single, because virginity is not restricted to a mere "no", but contains a profound "yes" in the spousal order: the gift of self for love in a total and undivided manner.

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

How do we understand this one? it seems to relate the gift of virginity with spousal love.

[Sponsa-Christi]

(sorry for the double post a few minutes ago.)