Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

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 [okay, consecrated virgins in this context MUST mean CVS because it talks about something of which marriage is the sign- the Consecration Prayer - and it is in the Roman Pontifical so it's not talking about Religious Profession which is in the Roman RITUAL.] 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 [Hmmm... this is very explicit that this is Spousal] of Christ and the Church. This doctrine [I need to pay special attention because this is called "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  [The writer is making it clear that "virgin" means "spouse" when referring to the Church or to the vocation of consecrated virginity ](cf. 2 Cor 11.2; Eph5.25–27). In the Church, the virgin spouse of Christ is the visible sign [ Note that he says "virgin" spouse of Christ and also note he says "visible sign" of that Church who is a Spouse.  Since the Rite requires actual virginity, this reference to "virgin" is not accidental.] of this mystery. This is the most profound meaning [the million dollar question is whether he really means "most profound meaning" or if he thinks that somehow religious profession of vows also counts] of consecrated virginity in the Church, and through it, the virgin participates in maternal fecundity [this is where the whole idea of the virgin BEING A MOTHER pops up again] of the Church (St. Augustine).

 

 

Note how the Rite of Religious Profession refers to nuns looking up to the Church as Mother whereas the Rite of Consecration tells the consecrated virgin to BE a Mother.  Are we starting to see a pattern here?  How do we go about proving that the religious IS a Mother in the way that a CV is?  How do we start proving that religious nuns have the most profound meaning of the words "virgin spouse"?  If we can't prove that religious nuns actually do match the CV in having the most profound meaning of the words "virgin spouse", does that mean that maybe CVs actually are Brides of Christ and nuns participate in this but are not the most profound meaning themselves?  If the document on nuns says that they signify the Church's spousal relationship more deeply than religious sisters and brothers, doesn't that mean that there's a possibility that consecrated virginity can be deeper still?

[Chiquitunga]

Okay, I am meaning to reply here, but reading all of the new posts and questions asked in different ways and answers is making my head spin! :stars: I feel like I wish the thread could be split in a few columns, like one of MarysLittleFlower's questions and answers from abrideofChrist, another column with abride and my posts, etc. Sorry, I know this is off topic, but it's just something I want to say to address why I am finding this a challenge (plus the fact that I have to leave the conversation soon)

 

First, I will write directly to MarysLittleFlower. I was typing this post below very quickly and had not actually read what you were quoting from Mulieris Dignitatem. Sorry. :blush: It was different couple paragraphs from what I had quoted in my post 148.

 

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:

 

I was quoting that myself there to make a specific point...

 

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

 

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

 

It was mentioned earlier in the thread and in the Dating thread, that women who are called to religious life are going to experience more the call to give themselves to God as a disciple, rather than a great desire to become a bride of Christ. I disagree with that strongly. That is why I decided to go look for something in a Church document and grabbed JPII's Theology of the Body and came upon Mulieris Dignitatem. I really wanted to show how it would be wrong to say that if a woman is called to an Order that does not have the Rite of CV (like the Poor Clares for instance) it must be that she does not have a great desire to give herself to Christ as His bride, but must experience more the call to be a disciple. It was the idea of calling a woman who was forsaking marriage in this world and making a total gift of herself to Christ as a disciple (and not a bride) that bothered me. 

 

I think Mulieris Dignitatem proves that that cannot be possible for a woman - to make a total gift of herself (which she does in Solemn Profession & also in the Profession of Sisters and those in Secular Institutes) that would be non-spousal but oriented toward being a disciple of His - or she would not be fulfilling her fundamental vocation as a woman.

 

Anyway, I am just repeating myself here again to illustrate how what I was saying before was different from what you were posting. Also, in one of your posts about Mulieris Dignitatem you asked if when the term "virginity" is used, is it speaking specifically of CVs. The answer is no. It is speaking of all consecrated women. (refer back to 148 to see the quote :like:) Sometimes Church documents do this, as abrideofChrist, has pointed out, and you have to figure out what they are saying. Mulieris Dignitatem however is not saying that for instance CV and Religious Profession are the same by clumping them together in those statements. And that is not something I believe (that they are the same) nor am trying to prove in this point #2 of mine. 

 

Wow, it's 4 am.... 

 

[Chiquitunga]

That is why I decided to go look for something in a Church document and grabbed JPII's Theology of the Body and came upon Mulieris Dignitatem.

 

quickly want to point this out, Mulieris Dignitatem is in the appendix of Theology of the Body and not part of it

 

edit: although I don't know if TOTB would be considered a Church document or not but Mulieris Dignitatem is (Apostolic Letter) sorry, I am also not schooled in Theology or Catholic studies, etc. 

Edited July 27, 2013 by Chiquitunga

[abrideofChrist]

I think Mulieris Dignitatem proves that that cannot be possible for a woman - to make a total gift of herself (which she does in Solemn Profession & also in the Profession of Sisters and those in Secular Institutes) that would be non-spousal but oriented toward being a disciple of His - or she would not be fulfilling her fundamental vocation as a woman.

 

 

What I said was carefully worded.  I said that religious consecration or secular institute consecration is NOT spousal by definition but only by participation.  If it is spousal by definition then there is no difference between any of the consecrations.  If there is no difference between the consecrations, there is no difference in the vocations.  If there is no difference in the vocations then religious life is essentially the same as secular institute life which is CLEARLY not the case.  So one has to go back to my original point which is that these other forms other than consecrated virginity per se are mainly that of discipleship and SECONDARILY of a spousal character but that it is not the ESSENCE of these forms to BE spousal in the fullest sense.  I don't know how many times I have to state this.

 

To put it another way.  IF to have religious consecration is to be PRIMARILY and FULLY spousal as visible images of the Church then we have the SERIOUS problem of priest religious being both Fully representing CHRIST as PRIEST & BRIDEGROOM and the CHURCH as BRIDE.  There is something really truly wrong with that.  This is why adjectives and modifers are extremely important. 
 

Edited July 27, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Chiquitunga]

What I said was carefully worded.  I said that religious consecration or secular institute consecration is NOT spousal by definition but only by participation.  If it is spousal by definition then there is no difference between any of the consecrations.  If there is no difference between the consecrations, there is no difference in the vocations.  If there is no difference in the vocations then religious life is essentially the same as secular institute life which is CLEARLY not the case.  So one has to go back to my original point which is that these other forms other than consecrated virginity per se are mainly that of discipleship and SECONDARILY of a spousal character but that it is not the ESSENCE of these forms to BE spousal in the fullest sense.  I don't know how many times I have to state this.

 

To put it another way.  IF to have religious consecration is to be PRIMARILY and FULLY spousal as visible images of the Church then we have the SERIOUS problem of priest religious being both Fully representing CHRIST as PRIEST & BRIDEGROOM and the CHURCH as BRIDE.  There is something really truly wrong with that.  This is why adjectives and modifers are extremely important. 
 

 

Okay, I am understanding it. I was honestly going to post that next, in order to reply to your other post... that first, I get the basics of what you are saying.

 

 

Consecration to a Life of Virginity is in essence spousal. 

 

Religious Profession is not, it is in essence that of following the Evangelical Counsels, to follow Christ more closely, aka discipleship

[Chiquitunga]

I think one thing I have trouble with is virginity vs. the vow of chastity in Religious Profession. Both are forsaking human marriage and choosing Christ as one's Bridegroom instead...

[OnlySunshine]

I think one thing I have trouble with is virginity vs. the vow of chastity in Religious Profession. Both are forsaking human marriage and choosing Christ as one's Bridegroom instead...

 

The difference as I understand it is that you do not have to be a virgin in order to take the vow of chastity.  You do, however, have to be a virgin in order to be consecrated to a life of virginity.  ;)

[Chiquitunga]

I want to make it clear again though, that I do believe there is most definitely a difference between Consecrated Virginity and Religious Profession, as I just stated...

 

thinking....

 

 

[Chiquitunga]

The difference as I understand it is that you do not have to be a virgin in order to take the vow of chastity.  You do, however, have to be a virgin in order to be consecrated to a life of virginity.  ;)

 

thanks Mater! :like: yes, that is pretty clear... but yeah, I mean the difference between consecrated virginity and profession the vow of chastity... okay, abride has already answered that.... the CV is specifically consecrated by the Church as a bride and given that title. it is the ESSENCE of that vocation.

 

the Religious professing the vow of chastity is not specifically getting consecrated as a bride of Christ, receiving a "new grace" and "new title" which it says in the homily in the Rite ... but rather she is continuing to be a bride of Christ as she was by virtue of her Baptism, and she is deepening that with the vow of chastity --- this is "by participation" aka by being a member of the Church

Edited July 27, 2013 by Chiquitunga

[Chiquitunga]

I think, or rather I know, one of the things I keep stumbling on is this term "by participation" In my mind it looks like a picture of a whole bunch of people collaborating with each other in doing something. but I know what the actual meaning is -- "being a part of" actually looking up "participation" according to one dictionary is it "The act of taking part or sharing in something"  

 

But we are talking about individual souls here and their interior relationship with Christ, which is something intimate. Yes it is something we all share, but something about the term "participation" doesn't sound right to me when thinking of individual souls.

 

I am sorry, this is a tangent, but the choice of words can be important in a discussion like this. I would prefer personally to say "by being a member of His Church" rather than "by participation"

 

This was what I was wondering here...

 

 

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

 

 

 

It is this post of yours, abrideofChrist, that really confused me

 

 

If by "The interior relationship of these women with Christ is a spousal relationship" you mean that it IS a spousal relationship, I wouldn't agree.  I would say it shares or participates in in the Church's spousal relationship.  Again, this is because those of us who are unordained share in the priesthood of Christ but we are not priests.  Consecrated virgins ARE spouses and Have a spousal relationship.  Religious reflect that to a certain extent but only to a certain extent.  I thought I read somewhere of a comparison someone else was making (on a different website/thread?) of how religious life is like the diaconate.  It isn't lay.  But it isn't the fullness of the priesthood or the fullness of what it means to be bride of Christ.

 

 

Because an individual soul is a member of the Church, it is a bride before God (aka, the essence of a soul is a bride before God) therefore that soul's individual relationship with God IS spousal.

 

[Chiquitunga]

But we are talking about individual souls here and their interior relationship with Christ, which is something intimate. Yes it is something we all share, but something about the term "participation" doesn't sound right to me when thinking of individual souls.

 

It is something we all share as members of His Church & it is something we all ARE -- something each of our individual souls ARE -- the ESSENCE of our souls

[Chiquitunga]

A CV's soul & vocation IS spousal to the deepest degree because she is giving herself completely to God in an essentially (aka, in ESSENCE) spousal way and being Consecrated by the Church very specifically as such, receiving a new title and grace. so she is fulfilling two of what Fr. Dubay defines as ways to be a "bride of Christ"

 

A Religious is deepening one of these ways, her being a bride of Christ by virtue of her Baptism (why then should she be called a bride of Christ in a extraordinary way, as CVs are? is the question...) 

 

I am just thinking out loud here, but these statements would follow your own thoughts right? I can understand this completely.

 

(Sorry, btw, that my posts now are more rambling in character than before, but it's because of the super odd hour and the need to wrap things up on my end.)

 

okay, but to conclude what I am saying here..... still though, for the Religious, since her individual soul IS in ESSENCE a bride, her relationship with Christ IS spousal. It has to be.

 

I believe each member of the Church would have a spousal relationship with Christ, whether they develop it in this world or not. If they do not give themselves to God in any way, still their soul is His bride through their Baptism.

 

But if they do give themselves to Him to the degree of a radical self giving, as the evangelical counsels, then especially by virtue of their being women, they could be called "brides of Christ" in a special way, which brings me back to my point # 1 which I made in post 146 for all the reasons I believe this.

[God's Beloved]

What I said was carefully worded.  I said that religious consecration or secular institute consecration is NOT spousal by definition but only by participation.  If it is spousal by definition then there is no difference between any of the consecrations.  If there is no difference between the consecrations, there is no difference in the vocations.  If there is no difference in the vocations then religious life is essentially the same as secular institute life which is CLEARLY not the case.  So one has to go back to my original point which is that these other forms other than consecrated virginity per se are mainly that of discipleship and SECONDARILY of a spousal character but that it is not the ESSENCE of these forms to BE spousal in the fullest sense.  I don't know how many times I have to state this.

 

 

 

According to me the essence of consecrated virginity is the call to assume the obligation to love the Christian community and the world--as a virgin, a bride of Christ and a mother.She is a symbol of the church even as an individual , like Virgin Mary.

 

In the Order of Virgins, the  Charism / Essence of the vocation is conferred on her through the gift of the Holy Spirit in the prayer of consecration by the bishop.

 

I do not think that the Rite of Religous Profession can confer this charism of  being virgin, bride , mother upon the individual religious .

 

In Religious life ,the  Charism /Essence  varies in kind and degrees according to various institutes.  It depends on the ascetic striving to live the vows of the Evangelical Counsels

 

Religious are formed into living the charism given by the Holy Spirit to the Founders of the Institute . The rite of religious profession does not confer the charism of the particular institute upon the religious. The  same rite can be used by several religious institutes with varying charisms.

Edited July 27, 2013 by God's Beloved

[Chiquitunga]

okay, I can now finally get to answering your posts directly... I will do so part by part

 

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.

 

Yes, that is correct. :like:

[Chiquitunga]

p.s. to the above post... just saw it and realized my little smiley there could be interpreted as sarcasm. definitely did not mean that... seriously.

 

meant it in a way as, yes, you have hit the nail on the head with that question. that is my point # 1 (trying to keep discussion organized in my mind by saying that, not to remind you) ...   my point #2 boils down to how I believe individual baptized souls have a spousal relationship with Christ, and that it would be all the more/deeper for women who have forsaken marriage in this world and chosen Christ as Bridegroom instead