Bride Of Christ

[Chiquitunga]

this reply I was typing before I started the others...

 

Maybe I should get this book too, to read it all in context...

 

but just looking at the quote: is the author saying that nuns are brides of Christ even if they didn't receive the Consecration? How would this relate to the thread? I'm not saying that there isn't anything special about the Consecration, - but it seems here that there's also something special about the enclosure, and that both are brides of Christ? My original interpretation was that the two vocations are both spousal but living it out in different ways: in the world or in the cloister... both belong to Him though. The author here also talks about the enclosure and how it helps them. But any thoughts?

 

Hi MarysLittleFlower! Yes, the author is saying that. He is saying that all consecrated women are brides of Christ actually (which fits in with what Mulieris Dignitatem was saying about all consecrated women being called to love Christ as their Spouse) but that the whole being and purpose of a Nun (which could be said is her ESSENCE) is to "love Christ with nuptial love"

She does not have all the diversions for instance that active religious would have to draw them away from this one purpose. 

 

I agree with you, in that he seems to be saying that there is something special specifically about enclosure in this light, that one could argue makes a Nun in ESSENCE a bride of Christ. 

 

According to Verbi Sponsa enclosed Nuns are a "unique grace" and that they have a "unique mode of belong to him alone" via their cloistered lives, which are centered around loving Christ in a spousal way.

 

I wonder if that could be compared to the "new grace" (referred to in the homily) that a CV receives at her consecration, though not that they are the same - but that it is a different grace, unique to them, and the fact that this grace is to live an enclosed life totally centered on loving Christ "with nuptial love" as the Abbot says, I think provides for a good argument that it would be incorrect to say Nuns are not brides of Christ in a special way beyond their Bapstim if they had not received the Rite of CV.

[abrideofChrist]

But if they started doing it after Sponsa Christi in 1950, why couldn't they continue to? 

 

IF they did NOT receive permission from the VATICAN itself, then they are NOT supposed to be having the Consecration of Virgins.  Sponsa Christi specified that it was for the convents whose tradition it was to give it (meaning is this was an Order-wide practice & spiritual patrimony not something that happened because someone at some convent was enthralled with it and put it in that convent's books) OR for those who apply to the Holy See and receive the proper permission to incorporate it into the Rite of Profession.  It may be that they have this special permission.  Not knowing the convent and talking with them first hand, there's no way I'd know.  :) 

 

What I do know is that in the religious Consecrations I have attended of both OCD Constitutions, I have never heard any of them use the Virginal Consecration.  It just isn't part of the patrimony of the Order, and is probably not in their official Ceremonial either, which makes me inclined to say that either they have received the necessary permission or they have swiped the Consecration without knowing the consequences. I have seen inclusive language added to the Liturgies of certain nuns and it wouldn't surprise me if something like the Virginal consecration was grabbed from the Roman Pontifical because it sounded so nice and bridal and substituted for the blessing of religious.

[abrideofChrist]

If the NUN's Profession IS ESSENTIALLY the same thing as the Consecration to a Life of Virginity, then, WHY do we have two Rites of Profession for Religious Nuns?  One is found in the Roman Ritual.  It is the profession of final vows without the Consecration of Virginity.  The other is found in the Roman Pontifical.  It is the profession of final vows with the Consecration of Virginity.  Again, why the redundancy if in fact redundancy it is?  Why is it that the Rite of Profession is very basic and only fleetingly alludes to bridal imagery and the Rite of Profession and Consecration to a Life of Virginity go full force into the whole Bride of Christ motif?

Edited July 30, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Chiquitunga]

If the NUN's Profession IS ESSENTIALLY the same thing as the Consecration to a Life of Virginity, then, WHY do we have two Rites of Profession for Religious Nuns?  One is found in the Roman Ritual.  It is the profession of final vows without the Consecration of Virginity.  The other is found in the Roman Pontifical.  It is the profession of final vows with the Consecration of Virginity.  Again, why the redundancy if in fact redundancy it is?  Why is it that the Rite of Profession is very basic and only fleetingly alludes to bridal imagery and the Rite of Profession and Consecration to a Life of Virginity go full force into the whole Bride of Christ motif?

 

But I already stated a few times that I do not believe they are the same.

[abrideofChrist]

But I already stated a few times that I do not believe they are the same.

 

Actually, both you and MarysLittleFlower are trying to say that they really are the same because look, the words seem the same!  Look at this quote of this saint and look at that.  And doesn't this look remarkably similar to that?   "special sign" vs "special image".  Looks the same.  So really there isn't a whole lot of difference, is there?  That's why I'm saying what needs to happen is a determined effort to show why there IS a difference between the Profession of Religious NUNS without the Consecration of Virgins and that WITH. Or to prove the Church is doing something redundant if both are Brides of Christ in the same way.  I point as an example your wondering if the Nun's ESSENCE is spousal because she's cloistered, which overlooks the fact that cloistered nuns can choose between the Rite of Profession that is in the Ritual or the one in the Pontifical (if they have the permission for the Consecration of Virgins).

Edited July 30, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Chiquitunga]

Okay, I see you were probably replying to this post of mine, where I said it could be argued that a Nun is in ESSENCE a bride of Christ.

 

By saying this I do not mean to be comparing the Rite of Religious Profession and Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity. 

 

I am just making an observation about who they are, and what their mission is in the Church. Is the Rite of Religious Profession the only thing we can use to define who they are? 

 

 

I agree with you, in that he seems to be saying that there is something special specifically about enclosure in this light, that one could argue makes a Nun in ESSENCE a bride of Christ. 

 

According to Verbi Sponsa enclosed Nuns are a "unique grace" and that they have a "unique mode of belong to him alone" via their cloistered lives, which are centered around loving Christ in a spousal way.

 

I wonder if that could be compared to the "new grace" (referred to in the homily) that a CV receives at her consecration, though not that they are the same - but that it is a different grace, unique to them, and the fact that this grace is to live an enclosed life totally centered on loving Christ "with nuptial love" as the Abbot says, I think provides for a good argument that it would be incorrect to say Nuns are not brides of Christ in a special way beyond their Bapstim if they had not received the Rite of CV.

 

[Chiquitunga]

Actually, both you and MarysLittleFlower are trying to say that they really are the same because look, the words seem the same!  Look at this quote of this saint and look at that.  And doesn't this look remarkably similar to that?   "special sign" vs "special image".  Looks the same.  So really there isn't a whole lot of difference, is there?  That's why I'm saying what needs to happen is a determined effort to show why there IS a difference between the Profession of Religious NUNS without the Consecration of Virgins and that WITH. Or to prove the Church is doing something redundant if both are Brides of Christ in the same way. I point as an example your wondering if the Nun's ESSENCE is spousal because she's cloistered, which overlooks the fact that cloistered nuns can choose between the Rite of Profession that is in the Ritual or the one in the Pontifical (if they have the permission for the Consecration of Virgins).

 

What I was writing above was saying that they are brides of Christ in different ways. 

 

CVs are brides of Christ because they are specifically consecrated as such in the Rite of CV

 

non-CV Nuns are brides of Christ via the unique mode of belonging to Him in the enclosure centered totally on loving Him as their Spouse, spoken of in Verbi Sponsa

 

Does it have to be only the two different Rites where we find where the Church gives her definition of the two?

 

& for the CV Nun - she would be a bride of Christ because she was specifically consecrated as so in the Rite of CV - and - via the unique mode of belonging to Him in the cloister

[abrideofChrist]

Well, we don't only use the Rites, but we should look to them to see what can be gleaned by logic from their existence and content.  IF you define enclosed Religious as having an essentially spousal vocation, you run into some real problems.

 

1.  Enclosed Nuns usually use the Rite of Profession for Religious Women (or adaptation).  This means that their essence is in fact tied to their vows.  No vows.  No religious.

 

2.  Enclosed Nuns can use the mixed Rite of Profession & Consecration found in the Roman Pontifical.  This would be redundant and ridiculous if vows alone made the nun's relationship spousal.

 

3.  If Nuns who make vows are Essentially Brides of Christ (see number 1), then those who are not Nuns are Essentially NOT BRIDES of Christ.  If this is the case, then why would the Church have restored the Rite of Consecration to Virginity for women living in the world since the only thing it really does is make them brides of Christ?  If to be a Bride of Christ in essence means to be a cloistered nun, then essentially a CV cannot exist in the world because a cloistered nun is out of the world so to speak.

 

4.  If some women who profess vows according to number 1., and by that fact are made Essentially Brides of Christ, we run into the problem that these self same vows are made by men.  In particular the problem is with enclosed priest monks.  Are we to say that the vows make him simultaneously a Priest-groom and a Bride of Christ?

[abrideofChrist]

The ONLY way you can resolve the above problem is to say that CVs are Essentially Brides of Christ along with the Church, and that Religious by essence participate in various degrees in a spousal relationship.

[abrideofChrist]

Which goes back to my original point in the first post, which is that people need to understand the infinite leap between what a thing is by essence, and what a thing shares through participation.  It is not fair to women who think they ARE completely and Essentially Brides of Christ if they are religious sisters but not CVs.

[Chiquitunga]

Well, we don't only use the Rites, but we should look to them to see what can be gleaned by logic from their existence and content.  IF you define enclosed Religious as having an essentially spousal vocation, you run into some real problems.

 

1.  Enclosed Nuns usually use the Rite of Profession for Religious Women (or adaptation).  This means that their essence is in fact tied to their vows.  No vows.  No religious.

 

I think it could also be said that a major part of their essence is also the mode of life they are living it, and to learn more about that we would look beyond the Religious Profession of Vows. 

 

Again, I am not saying it is the same as CVs. I am saying they are brides of Christ in a different unique way - more defined by their way of life. I don't know if one could say the vows of Poverty, Chastity & Obedience are all that define them. It's also their Rule and Constitutions, Papal Enclosure, documents of the Church, etc.  

 

 

 

2.  Enclosed Nuns can use the mixed Rite of Profession & Consecration found in the Roman Pontifical.  This would be redundant and ridiculous if vows alone made the nun's relationship spousal.

 

Not all of them can though.... Dominicans, Poor Clares... I know you know this already. Should we say of these Nuns that they are not espoused to Christ? even when their Rites say so, like the receiving of the ring, which have to be approved by the Holy See "with a fine comb" as Sr. MC said.

 

Again, I am saying Nuns without the CV can still be called brides of Christ and are espoused to Him, but not in the same way as CVs.

 

 

 

3.  If Nuns who make vows are Essentially Brides of Christ (see number 1), then those who are not Nuns are Essentially NOT BRIDES of Christ.  If this is the case, then why would the Church have restored the Rite of Consecration to Virginity for women living in the world since the only thing it really does is make them brides of Christ?  If to be a Bride of Christ in essence means to be a cloistered nun, then essentially a CV cannot exist in the world because a cloistered nun is out of the world so to speak.

 

Again, I'm talking about both having the right to be called a bride of Christ, but not in the same way.

 

I would concur that CVs are really more brides of Christ by definition, because it is the essence of their vocation. I am following you on that.

 

But I still do not think a non-CV Nun shouldn't be called one.... again because what I've discussed, them being the Heirs of the 1st CVs, Verbi Sponsa calling them that & their unique way of life centered on the Divine Spouse.

 

Again, not all Nuns can chose the CV Rite.... I don't think this means they cannot be espoused to Christ then... not in the same way as CVs are, but as you say & I am learning by participation.

 

 

 

4.  If some women who profess vows according to number 1., and by that fact are made Essentially Brides of Christ, we run into the problem that these self same vows are made by men.  In particular the problem is with enclosed priest monks.  Are we to say that the vows make him simultaneously a Priest-groom and a Bride of Christ?

 

I don't think this comparison works very well though, because of the difference between men and women, as we see in Mulieris Dignitatem where it says are consecrated woman choose Christ as Spouse instead. I do not know of a document specifically about men that would say so, though their souls would be brides of Christ. Also, men cannot use the consecration prayer in the Rite of Religious Profession that has spousal language.

[Chiquitunga]

The ONLY way you can resolve the above problem is to say that CVs are Essentially Brides of Christ along with the Church, and that Religious by essence participate in various degrees in a spousal relationship.

 

Which goes back to my original point in the first post, which is that people need to understand the infinite leap between what a thing is by essence, and what a thing shares through participation.  It is not fair to women who think they ARE completely and Essentially Brides of Christ if they are religious sisters but not CVs.

 

Okay, these I understand now. I can concur with you on the above statements. :like:

[Chiquitunga]

sorry, I promise soon I am going to take my break here... thank you for you patience and replies to my posts... I believe the concept I need to learn is this "by participation" as I was saying before. I can see that this is how a Nun is a bride of Christ, to an especially deep degree.

 

Here was my recent post where I grappled with what this by participation is...

 

abrideofChrist, thank you for you replies! I have read them a few times and am following your logic.

 

One point I want to touch on first (which is my point #2 that I was referring to it as before) is this about our common priesthood and common sponsality (I'm not sure if that is the right term, you understand what I am saying though, our all being brides of Christ by virtue of our Bapstim, clarifying for others)

 

In the article above on our common priesthood, it says "You are truly a priest."  

 

This is also how I understand the common sponsality: each soul is truly a bride. That means that the ESSENCE (not trying to be sarcastic but to emphasize) of a soul is that it IS a bride. Therefore, all souls in the Church can have a spousal relationship with Christ. If the soul IS a bride, the soul's relationship with Christ IS spousal. 

 

This is not what you are saying here though, in this post that has bothered me the most in this whole thread.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I don't think it can be said that an individual soul that IS a bride of Christ, can only have a partially spousal relationship with Our Lord. 

 

How would this look?  Jesus: "Little soul I love you, who are partially My bride." No the soul IS fully His bride. He would have died for that soul alone, who is His bride. He gives Himself FULLY to that one soul in the Eucharist, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. He does not give less of Himself to a non-CV soul in the Eucharist. He never gives Himself only partially in the Eucharist. He's giving His FULL self to His bride, which is each and every individual soul.

 

Each baptized soul though does not image the whole Church perfectly/fully, as a virgin bride, as a CV in all of her being does ... can we say, not only her soul but whole being, body, because she is physically a virgin, & soul? That would make her perfectly image the Church! This makes sense to me, and helps me see the difference between a CV and non-CV baptized soul.

 

 

[Chiquitunga]

IF they did NOT receive permission from the VATICAN itself, then they are NOT supposed to be having the Consecration of Virgins.  Sponsa Christi specified that it was for the convents whose tradition it was to give it (meaning is this was an Order-wide practice & spiritual patrimony not something that happened because someone at some convent was enthralled with it and put it in that convent's books) OR for those who apply to the Holy See and receive the proper permission to incorporate it into the Rite of Profession.  It may be that they have this special permission.  Not knowing the convent and talking with them first hand, there's no way I'd know.  :)

 

What I do know is that in the religious Consecrations I have attended of both OCD Constitutions, I have never heard any of them use the Virginal Consecration.  It just isn't part of the patrimony of the Order, and is probably not in their official Ceremonial either, which makes me inclined to say that either they have received the necessary permission or they have swiped the Consecration without knowing the consequences. I have seen inclusive language added to the Liturgies of certain nuns and it wouldn't surprise me if something like the Virginal consecration was grabbed from the Roman Pontifical because it sounded so nice and bridal and substituted for the blessing of religious.

 

 

In A Few Lines to Tell You here (bottom of the page) it says that this particular Carmel began doing it at that time. This book was written in 1957. I am not saying whether or not this was the Carmel whose Profession booklet I scanned there. But here we can know that at least one American OCD Carmel had it. They say they received the Bishop's permission, and I would guess this implies the Holy See also. This book is not strictly factual, but was written more as a general look into their life. Sister Marie of the Trinity was a made up name. If this Carmel had it, I would guess other Carmels may have also.

[Chiquitunga]

Now it is time for my reasons to be addressed.  If the difference is essential, or that it really doesn't matter if there is a consecration or not because God can just do it out of the blue, then we really need some compelling reasons for that.  Just because He isn't bound to the Sacraments doesn't mean that He will automatically raise the woman under private vow or religious profession to nuptial seal of consecrated virginity any more than we assume He makes the devout monk who has a priestly spirituality a priest.

 

I can see what you are saying but it's a bigger leap to go from lay to an ordained priest, a Sacrament, than to the seal of Consecrated Virginity, a Sacramental. I know it is considered the highest Sacramental in the Church (I think I read that on the USACV site) but still. I'm really with Sponsa Christi in her thoughts here and here. I link them so that others might be able to refer back to them easily.

 

Soon I have to leave the conversation, though I will keep reflecting and trying to learn about this like reading Fr. Dubay's book which I bought as a result of this thread, and I look forward to checking out The One Bride. I have really learned a lot here and I appreciate your patience in reading and replying to my posts, abride, and everyone else here and on VS!

 

I think everyone must see me as a nut now :blush: (but oh well, there's truth to that lol) staying up at such ungodly hours posting and posting!  :twitch: I think I have scandalized everyone! I can't do this during the day though. I have a tendency to get too focused and stuck on things like debates at times. Mea culpa!  :getaclue:

 

goodnight/morning & God bless!