Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

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.

 

Marys Little Flower, I have frequently said that the consecrated state reflects the spousal stance of the Church better than non consecrated members of the faithful do.  I do not quite understand what the difficulty is here.  If you acknowledge that the perfect image of the spousal Church is in its solemn consecration to a life of virginity and being a bride of Christ, then the other modes may be somewhat spousal by participation in one way or another but not in the fullest sense of the term.  I honestly don't know what else I can say to this effect because it has to do with what is essential to something's nature rather than simply something that shares in something.  Did you understand the army woman analogy? If so, how do you feel it applies to your current question?

 

[Chiquitunga]

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.

 

That is a really good point, and what I was pondering here also.

 

I am going to have to come back later tonight to check up on the rest of the posts here and reply to abrideofChrist as well. Soon though I have to pull out of the conversation to attend to a few time sensitive projects starting in my life now. But I should have time to come back later tonight. God bless everyone here! :heart:

[MarysLittleFlower]

AbrideofChrist,

 

Thanks for the reply. I think the difficulty for me is this... the document was written about marriage and virginity. It's not very clear to me if it's talking about Consecrated Virginity in particular, or religious life too. If it's only about CV, that's one thing. If it's about religious life as well, then it seems to imply that this type of self-giving involving virginity is spousal. That's why it's not just a "no" (to earthly marriage), but a "yes" as well to God. If this type of self giving is spousal by its very definition, then how does this relate to the current discussion on religious life? But the first question is: what is the document talking about in the first place.

 

I don't know... I'm meaning to pray about this more. I need to reflect on it.

[abrideofChrist]

AbrideofChrist,

 

Thanks for the reply. I think the difficulty for me is this... the document was written about marriage and virginity. It's not very clear to me if it's talking about Consecrated Virginity in particular, or religious life too. If it's only about CV, that's one thing. If it's about religious life as well, then it seems to imply that this type of self-giving involving virginity is spousal. That's why it's not just a "no" (to earthly marriage), but a "yes" as well to God. If this type of self giving is spousal by its very definition, then how does this relate to the current discussion on religious life? But the first question is: what is the document talking about in the first place.

 

I don't know... I'm meaning to pray about this more. I need to reflect on it.

 

MarysLittleFlower

 

If I were to point to a flower and said I'm pointing to a flower, you would agree with me, I'm sure.

 

If I were to point to a man and said I'm pointing to a man, I think you would also agree with me.

 

If I were to point to a picture of a man and said I'm pointing to a man, I think you would agree with me.

 

But you would realize that a picture of a man and a man himself is NOT the same thing.  The picture of a man "participates" in what it means to be a man (shape or whatever) but it IS not a man strictly speaking.  There is nothing wrong or incorrect in saying that the picture is of a man, but you would have to agree that the definition of "man" referring to a picture and the definition of "man" referring to a human being right in front of you is ESSENTIALLY different.  Or, put in other words, the essence of reflecting the concept of a man and the essence of being a man are two highly different realities even if one of them is derived from the other.

 

In religious life, the religious nun reflects or is a picture of the Church as a Bride of Christ.  We CAN call her a Bride of Christ (just like we call a picture of John, John) but she IS not the Bride of Christ strictly speaking.  In consecrated virginity, the CV nun or the CV living in the world IS the Bride of Christ and not merely a picture of that reality. 

 

The problem comes in when well meaning people talk about non CV religious nuns (and sisters) as if they are Brides of Christ in the full sense of the word because they think or have been taught that they are what consecrated virgins are.  Or, in other words, they call the picture John thinking that the Picture IS John.

 

A secular example would be like this.  All USA citizens are Americans.  They all participate in what it means to be part of the United States.  But for all intents and purposes, certain people are chosen to "BE" America to other countries.  To these countries, ambassadors "ARE" America.  America as a country is embodied in them. 

 

The difference between an ambassador and a CV is that the embodiment of America is fictional and it serves a useful purpose, whereas the CV actually is what she is called.  She not only participates in what it means to be a bride of Christ by her citizenship in the Church but she IS a bride of Christ because the Holy Spirit has made her share in the Church's own nature as Bride of Christ in the fullest and completest way so that she does visibly represent the Church in her whole being.  A religious in this analogy would be like a governor who is both a citizen and embodies the citizenry in a greater way than other citizens but not in the complete way an ambassador would.

 

If you've noticed, I've used the word "IS" quite a lot and have emphasized it.  This is because I am using it in its primary sense to refer to the ESSENCE or EXISTENCE or BEING of something.  The essence of what it means to be John is that John IS John and our definition will have to include the fact that John is a living human being.  The essence of a photo or a drawing of John, even if it is called or named John IS a photo or drawing. 

 

If you line up a bunch of fruits, you can point to a peach and to an apricot and say "that's orange"!  They are equally fruit.  They share an orange color.  They are not, however orange (citrus).  What makes a citrus fruit of the variety called an orange different from the other orange colored fruits has to do with what it is fundamentally at its core being or core existence or its essence rather than its color (which it shares with the other fruits).  Likewise, you can line up a bunch of consecrated persons.  Priest monks, deacon monks, sisters, nuns, CV nuns, hermits, and others might be in your hypothetical group.  They are all brides of Christ, and their spousal relationship with Christ corresponding to their consecrated status in the Church admits of degrees just like the color intensity of a peach or apricot can differ in its orangeness.  But only CV nuns and CVs in the group would actually BE brides of Christ properly speaking.  The problem comes when everyone is called an orange when it is more helpful for the cook to know that a citrus fruit called an orange is the desired fruit an not something that has an orange color.  Right now, people think that nuns ARE Brides of Christ and they don't realize that the real orange is even a possibility because they have been taught that the apricots and the peaches ARE brides of Christ.

[MarysLittleFlower]

AbrideofChrist,

 

Thanks for the reply :) thanks for using examples to help me understand it. I see what you are saying. I also understand you've done a lot of research on this.

 

When I look at the Church documents or explanations, I see the evidence for this position, I also see some things that are a bit hard to explain. It's like I see both points of view. This makes it very hard to figure out what the case is with this. I'm going to try and read this thread again and also pray more, hopefully God would help me to see. If the Church teaches this way (I'm not rejecting anything) - then the things that are hard to explain, might fit if I get more information. I'm not rejecting either view... I need to reflect on it all more too.

 

God bless

Edited July 27, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

The real difficulty in this discussion is that the ESSENCE of Religious Consecration and the ESSENCE of Virginal Consecration differ and to understand this concept requires an understanding of what the term "ESSENCE" means.  If one understands that Religious Consecration is ESSENTIALLY different than Virginal Consecration then the question becomes what is the Essential Difference?  Since the Essence of Virginal Consecration is to BE a Bride of Christ and Visibly Represent the Church, then clearly the Essence of Religious Life is NOT to BE a Bride of Christ.  Otherwise the Vocations of Religious Life and Consecrated Virginity would be IDENTICAL and Essentially the SAME.  Unfortunately, many, including myself, had to learn these concepts in philosophy classes that went from logic to metaphysics and spent years studying philosophical concepts including what it means to have equivocal, univocal, and derivative meanings of words, and how analogy and metaphors are to be understood.  This means that I cannot give a quick philosophy & theology class that would effectively help a person learn how to read the phrase "bride of Christ" or "spousal" in their different senses and thereby be able to distinguish how they are used in the different documents that have been quoted by different posters in this thread.  Just as an example, the phrase "consecrated virgins" has many different senses.  It can be used as shorthand for referring to consecrated persons in general.  It can be used to refer to religious.  It can be used to refer to CVs.  The trick is learning how to interpret the phrase based on its context.

 

Instead of giving the longish philosophy class and then theology class (after all, this is what I and many others have paid good money for and spent the time and effort to really learn these concepts since they can't be learned in a day and we typically do not receive our educations via infused knowledge), I will boil the heart of this discussion as simply as I can and then see if others are up to the challenge of explaining it better.

 

First.  We know that the Church says that the heart or essence of the vocation to consecrated virginity is that of being a Bride of Christ "sharing with the Church" the Title of Bride of Christ.  We then learn that there are different ways the Church uses the term "Bride of Christ" (cf. Dubay).  There are very legitimate ways of using the phrase "bride of Christ" but only ONE way refers to the human embodiment or incarnate full representation of the Church as Virgin, Bride, and Mother.  That is the Consecrated Virgin who is a religious nun or woman living in the world who receives the Consecration to a Life of Virginity from her bishop.  All other senses of the phrase "bride" or "spousal" when referring to consecrated persons who are not CVs are derivative and of a participatory nature rather than the direct sharing of the Church's own nature as Bride.

 

Second.  The problem is not calling someone a bride of Christ.  This is why the male saints could refer to themselves as brides of Christ (cf. Dubay's categories of the individual soul and mystical union).  The problem comes from attributing the title of bride of Christ to a consecrated person AS IF the meaning is univocal to the meaning of the same phrase referring to a CV. 

 

Here's how I would use Dubay's distinctions.

 

The Church.  Consecrated persons mirror the Church completely or partially.  CVs represent the Church completely.  Other consecrated people represent the Church partially.

 

The individual soul to Christ.  All consecrated persons' souls- whether female or male - are as a bride to God by virtue of their baptism.  This is common to all the baptized.

 

The mystical union.  Some people achieve the mystical union in this life.  This is not essential to consecrated life but consecrated life is ordered to it.  Men and women can have the mystical union.  Again, this is a "mystic" or level of prayer level union with God that is likened to marriage but IS NOT itself marriage.

 

The consecrated virgin.  According to Dubay, the CV alone is able to unite all four characteristics in herself.  If we understand this category to mean the generic consecrated person (male/female), then see the distinction of number 1 of partial or complete representation or attribution of the term "Bride of Christ" generically for all consecrated persons and then CVs respectively.  If we understand this in the strict sense of the CV who is defined as a woman who has received the Consecration to a Life of Virginity, then we must understand number 1 as a complete sharing of the essence of Bride of Christ with the Church.  Either way, there is an essential difference between a person who shares in the essence of the spousal nature of the Church completely or partially. 

 

It is not fair for women who are discerning their vocations to be told that partial representation of the Church is the complete representation of the Church as Bride of Christ.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I understand there's a lot of philosophical background to the concepts. Since it might be unrealistic for me to learn all this as it would require getting some degrees and taking classes, - my hope is that maybe from looking at the Church teachings, we can see them being mirrored there. For example, if there's a difference between CVs and religious in this way, I assume that somewhere this must have been talked about. Otherwise, how do we know if when the Church documents use the word "spouse" in reference to religious, they are talking about them truly being spouses of Christ, or participating in the Church being the Bride. I think that somewhere, this must have been clarified? I see what you're saying about essence. I don't disagree that a CV is a bride of Christ. My question is more like - where can we see this in Church teachings.. it's like being a detective and looking for clues in the Church teaching :) you mentioned something, - how there are nuns who receive both the Consecration and vows. You said this points to them being different things. Maybe they're different, - the question is how..  maybe the thing I could do is go through the thread and other Church documents to see what the Church has said, and pray for guidance so I don't make a mistake in understanding it. I don't know if I'll find out the answer with complete certainty, I suppose if it's God's will, then... If I still won't understand, perhaps I'd just have to leave it to Him, and keep praying that at least I won't think something heretical. I think we're all interpreting the Church documents in some way... the question is what is the correct interpretation.

Edited July 27, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just sharing some thoughts...I'm not really intending to argue anything, only to continue exploring this topic. I'm not rejecting anything either.

 

I understand that when we're talking about this topic, we're talking about the essence of who the person is.

 

In the original post, AbrideofChrist quoted the following:

 

"be allowed to give the impression that the Church has less esteem today than in the past for consecrated virginity as an act of complete and perpetual spousal self-giving to God and neighbor and an escatological sign of the kingdom of heaven and the presence of God's love for the world and of Christ's love for the Church" (Bugnini).

 

Above, I quoted a Church document that uses very similar language:

 

"One cannot correctly understand virginity - a woman's consecration in virginity - without referring to spousal love....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." (Mulieris Dignitatum)

 

Mulieris Dignitatum deals simply with the role of women in the Church: mothers and virgins, specifically. It doesn't distinguish between religious life and consecrated life, in my understanding. This is why I asked if it's talking about Consecrated Virginity or consecrated life in general: because if it's talking about consecrated life in general, we can see the language used is VERY similar to the quote about Consecrated Virgins posted by AbrideofChrist. If the language is similar, - how do we explain the similarity or difference? Does it mean that religious are also brides of Christ, or not? I guess for this we'd need to look at more Church documents...

 

In the OP, there was also mentioned the difference in the Rites. I can see that there is a difference. However, certain types of the Rite for religious profession does include spousal language as well... for example, regarding the rings, etc.

 

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I'm hoping that somewhere out there, there's an explanation, that explains which interpretation is correct... how would we know, which one is correct? and is it something that we should know and think about, or is it something that maybe we could just leave to God and simply discern wherever He calls us? after all, He's the one who decides who to call for what...

 

 

Edited July 27, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

I don't disagree that a CV is a bride of Christ. My question is more like - where can we see this in Church teachings.. it's like being a detective and looking for clues in the Church teaching :) you mentioned something, - how there are nuns who receive both the Consecration and vows. You said this points to them being different things. Maybe they're different, - the question is how.. 

 

 

MarysLIttleFlower.  I think you need to reframe your question.  This thread has a LOT of Church documents that DO discuss the Church's teachings on the matter.  It's not so much a problem of not being able to locate documents but how to interpret them! Instead of asking the Church to give you a very explicit sentence that tells you that the CV is a Bride of Christ in the fullest and completest sense, and that religious only partially share in this, why don't you try to prove the opposite using Church documents?  Why not build a case for saying that there is no essential difference between consecrated virgin nuns who have received the Consecration according to the Rite in the Roman Pontifical and the religious nuns who have made vows in profession insofar as being a Bride of Christ is concerned?  I think if you go this route, you will quickly find the answer to your question of "how".

[abrideofChrist]

Also, if you do reframe your quest, it may be helpful to remember that Vita Consecrata highlights the DIFFERENCES of the different Forms of Consecrated Life in the beginning of the document.  Here's what it has to say regarding Consecrated Virgins:

 

 

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

 

 

If being a special image of the Bride is not the hallmark of the CV, then why is it a vocation at all?  It should be merged into the other vocations open to women.

[abrideofChrist]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I just realized I may have not been terribly clear about what I mean about reframing the question or how to do it.  This is what I'm talking about.  You don't need to read any philosophy or theology books for this.  It will take work, but I think in the end you'll be very happy you did it.

 

Here's how I'd go about it if I were you.

 

I would print out or get internet tabs on every document or important quote that is quoted in this thread.  This includes the Apostolic Constitutions, the Rites, the articles by the priests on Consecrated Virginity, sections of Mulieris Dignitatem, etc. 

 

I would then go through and try to understand the words of virgin, virginity, and spousal in their proper context.  Is virgin being used in the sense of married vs. unmarried?  Is it being used in the sense of someone who has decided to give their lives to God in celibacy vs. marriage?  Is it being used for all women in the consecrated life?  Is it being used for women who have received the Consecration of Virgins?  Is it being used to mean religious?  What would make me think it is being used in one way as opposed to other ways?  What clues are in the surrounding text?

 

Next, I'd go through the documents looking to find any reason that would make me say that Religious NUNS are the SAME THING as CONSECRATED VIRGINS and that the Church should chuck the Consecration to a Life of Virginity FOR RELIGIOUS  because it IS THE SAME THING.  To make sure I'm on the right track, I'd make sure I highlight any text that makes me doubt that religious consecration and virginal consecration is the same thing.  I would then try to figure out how to reconcile the doubts with the texts at hand.  For example, if I read in Vita Consecrata that CVs are a SPECIAL representation of THE BRIDE  THE CHURCH, I need to prove that RELIGIOUS also have that exact same representation of THE BRIDE THE CHURCH.  If I read in the Rite of Profession that religious are to look to the Church as a Mother and I read in the Rite of Consecration that CVs ARE MOTHER, I need to figure out a way of showing that it is an accidental and not essential difference. 

 

So, let us take a quick example (I'm not going through all of the steps here, but just highlighting what I am talking about).

 

Here’s an excellent, pithy analysis.

 

“Virginity,” by Rev. Pierre-Thomas Camelot, OP (New Catholic Encyclopedia,  2^nd edition, 2003, though it looks like this article was unchanged from the 1967, 1^st edition):

 

If Christian marriage is the sacred sign (sacramentum) of the union of Christ and the Church, consecrated virgins attain to something beyond the sign and are in immediate contact with the holy reality, of which marriage is the sign. In them is realized the nuptial union of Christ and the Church. This doctrine is expressed with exactness in the preface of the consecration of virgins in the Roman Pontifical, which employs the terms of the Leonine Sacramentary alluded to above.

 

Thus the ecclesial significance of consecrated virginity is clear. We would demean it if we were to consider it only under its utilitarian aspect, and see the virgin as renouncing marriage simply to devote herself more efficaciously to charitable or apostolic works. Virginity is best seen in the mystery of the Church, which is at the same time virgin and spouse (cf. 2 Cor 11.2; Eph5.25–27). In the Church, the virgin spouse of Christ is the visible sign of this mystery. This is the most profound meaning of consecrated virginity in the Church, and through it, the virgin participates in maternal fecundity of the Church (St. Augustine).

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

MarysLIttleFlower.  I think you need to reframe your question.  This thread has a LOT of Church documents that DO discuss the Church's teachings on the matter.  It's not so much a problem of not being able to locate documents but how to interpret them! Instead of asking the Church to give you a very explicit sentence that tells you that the CV is a Bride of Christ in the fullest and completest sense, and that religious only partially share in this, why don't you try to prove the opposite using Church documents?  Why not build a case for saying that there is no essential difference between consecrated virgin nuns who have received the Consecration according to the Rite in the Roman Pontifical and the religious nuns who have made vows in profession insofar as being a Bride of Christ is concerned?  I think if you go this route, you will quickly find the answer to your question of "how".

 

I agree it's about the interpretation... yes. That's a possible idea to try.

Also, if you do reframe your quest, it may be helpful to remember that Vita Consecrata highlights the DIFFERENCES of the different Forms of Consecrated Life in the beginning of the document.  Here's what it has to say regarding Consecrated Virgins:

 

 

If being a special image of the Bride is not the hallmark of the CV, then why is it a vocation at all?  It should be merged into the other vocations open to women.

 

My understanding is that there were CVs in the beginning of the Church, then this turned into religious life as they began living in monasteries... am I right? the Rites changed over time though, as we can see, and the point of this thread is perhaps to see if there's a significant different in the Rites. Recently, as we know, the vocation was renewed in the Church. If nuns are also brides of Christ, why have CVs, is that your question? perhaps in that case it would be to have His brides in the world also? i don't know... but as for whether nuns are Christ's brides, - I think trying to build a case from Church teachings might work but one would need to pray for an open mind to accept whatever the answer is :) I think what frightens me is how sometimes we can blind ourselves to the truth. Also since I don't know what God is calling me to, I don't know if it would be good to wait a bit so I don't assume, - as being His bride is a gift, not something we're entitled to. I don't know. From an intellectual perspective, I think it's a good idea though: to try and build a case for the opposite.

[abrideofChrist]

I agree it's about the interpretation... yes. That's a possible idea to try.

 

My understanding is that there were CVs in the beginning of the Church, then this turned into religious life as they began living in monasteries...

 

No.  There were CVs from the beginning of the Church until today.

 

The Rite of Consecration was originally for women living in the world (i.e. Mary).  Then the Rite split into two when religious communities came along.  One form was for nuns and the other form was for the women in the world.  There have been several revisions of the Rite.  The most recent one that was in effect until 1970 only had the form for religious.  In 1970, the Rite split again into two forms.

 

A separate thing in itself, religious profession began with the monks.  It spread to the nuns who added the vows to their way of life.  Many of these nuns WERE already Consecrated Virgins.  So most used the Rite of Consecration to Virginity for Religious because the vows were added to the Consecration in this Rite.  Men never had the Consecration to a Life of Virginity.  Eventually in the 1200s, when the mendicants came into being, the women dropped the Consecration to a Life of Virginity and only had Religious Profession of Vows like the men.

 

Consecration to Virginity and Religious Profession were always distinct things the Rite of Consecration has always existed from the earliest centuries till now.  As the Church talks about in Sponsa Christi, the Church ADDED the vows for communal life... 

[MarysLittleFlower]

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I just realized I may have not been terribly clear about what I mean about reframing the question or how to do it.  This is what I'm talking about.  You don't need to read any philosophy or theology books for this.  It will take work, but I think in the end you'll be very happy you did it.

 

Here's how I'd go about it if I were you.

 

I would print out or get internet tabs on every document or important quote that is quoted in this thread.  This includes the Apostolic Constitutions, the Rites, the articles by the priests on Consecrated Virginity, sections of Mulieris Dignitatem, etc. 

 

I would then go through and try to understand the words of virgin, virginity, and spousal in their proper context.  Is virgin being used in the sense of married vs. unmarried?  Is it being used in the sense of someone who has decided to give their lives to God in celibacy vs. marriage?  Is it being used for all women in the consecrated life?  Is it being used for women who have received the Consecration of Virgins?  Is it being used to mean religious?  What would make me think it is being used in one way as opposed to other ways?  What clues are in the surrounding text?

 

Next, I'd go through the documents looking to find any reason that would make me say that Religious NUNS are the SAME THING as CONSECRATED VIRGINS and that the Church should chuck the Consecration to a Life of Virginity FOR RELIGIOUS  because it IS THE SAME THING.  To make sure I'm on the right track, I'd make sure I highlight any text that makes me doubt that religious consecration and virginal consecration is the same thing.  I would then try to figure out how to reconcile the doubts with the texts at hand.  For example, if I read in Vita Consecrata that CVs are a SPECIAL representation of THE BRIDE  THE CHURCH, I need to prove that RELIGIOUS also have that exact same representation of THE BRIDE THE CHURCH.  If I read in the Rite of Profession that religious are to look to the Church as a Mother and I read in the Rite of Consecration that CVs ARE MOTHER, I need to figure out a way of showing that it is an accidental and not essential difference. 

 

So, let us take a quick example (I'm not going through all of the steps here, but just highlighting what I am talking about).

 

Thanks, that seems like a good method :)

 

I think what frightens me a bit about it is that it's just me and the documents, so how do I know if I'm correct. I hope that somewhere during the time I could talk to a priest who knows about this vocation so he can help me see if I'm analyzing it all correctly.

 

I think this is a good method though for an intellectual study. I'm trying to figure out my motives as well.. why am I so concerned about this. It makes sense for a Consecrated Virgin or a Religious to study this topic, as it relates to their vocation - if that is something that is indeed good for them to do as an individual. I understand it can also help in discernment. But I don't even know for sure what God is calling me to. I don't want to concern myself so deeply as if I'm assuming what His call would be. I got involved in this thread mostly because I'm drawn to the bridal spirituality. I also don't want to analyze too much things that are so deeply rooted in - His own choice. I understand He works with the Church because these vocations are discerned and lived within the Church... and Church teaching reflects them...

 

hmm I'll see. If this is something that would be good to do, then I think that's a helpful method for it :)

 

(Maybe what i said just now doesn't really make sense, sorry about that if it doesn't - it's really late and sometimes I can't really articulate myself well.)

[MarysLittleFlower]

No.  There were CVs from the beginning of the Church until today.

 

The Rite of Consecration was originally for women living in the world (i.e. Mary).  Then the Rite split into two when religious communities came along.  One form was for nuns and the other form was for the women in the world.  There have been several revisions of the Rite.  The most recent one that was in effect until 1970 only had the form for religious.  In 1970, the Rite split again into two forms.

 

A separate thing in itself, religious profession began with the monks.  It spread to the nuns who added the vows to their way of life.  Many of these nuns WERE already Consecrated Virgins.  So most used the Rite of Consecration to Virginity for Religious because the vows were added to the Consecration in this Rite.  Men never had the Consecration to a Life of Virginity.  Eventually in the 1200s, when the mendicants came into being, the women dropped the Consecration to a Life of Virginity and only had Religious Profession of Vows like the men.

 

Consecration to Virginity and Religious Profession were always distinct things the Rite of Consecration has always existed from the earliest centuries till now.  As the Church talks about in Sponsa Christi, the Church ADDED the vows for communal life... 

 

I see... I didn't know that, but I guess what I meant is just that the nuns in the beginning used to be CVs in the world, then they moved to the monasteries (some of them).

 

I wonder if in the mendicant orders, there was a difference in how they saw the female and the male orders... like if the nuns still had a bridal spirituality, and if this indicated something.