Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, I have shown official documents - particularly those of the Rites and even of the Popes - in this thread.  What is lacking here is not so much the documents but a basic understanding of how to interpret them.  I use the analogy of the priesthood because  1) the Popes themselves use it [if you did not realize this before, you may want to do some further research in the USACV resources and elsewhere] 2) the Rite of Consecration was deliberately engineered to mirror both marriage and ordination [a fact acknowledged by prominent liturgists and Cardinal Burke as well] 3) as Sr. Mary Catherine stated but didn't source, the Church does have a theology of ontological change but just because you are unfamiliar with it like you were unfamiliar with how the Church understands "moral obligation" does not mean that it doesn't exist in Theology. 

 

4) It appears that you are trying to unduly mystify the nature of consecrated virginity.  Just because the Church has not dogmatically pronounced consecrated virginity to be like the priesthood doesn't mean that the analogy does not apply. The way you are using the term "speculative theology" is by way of implying that it is "speculative" or, in more common language, it may be just pure idle speculation with no need to have a basis in reality.  If you were to understand speculative theology, the way the Church does, you would realize that some objects of speculative theology are more reflective of reality/truth than others, depending on the strength of the argument leading to the conclusion.  Therefore, the strength or weakness of a position lies not in speculation, but in the line of reasoning and how it conforms to the whole of revealed and deduced truth. One solid way of disproving speculative theological propositions is to find solid truths taught by the Church or as found in perennial truth, and showing how it contradicts the object of speculation.  Your assertion merely states that the analogy "might" not be accurate.  It does not prove by revealed or naturally deducible truth that it IS inaccurate.  Therefore, I do not see the point in cautioning people on this thread that this is "speculative theology" since you have no solid reason to do so (other than, say, trying to mystify the nature and essence of consecrated virginity: a goal which would make sense if you want to impose moral obligations based on nebulous or hazy notions of what the essence of consecrated virginity is).

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, I have shown official documents - particularly those of the Rites and even of the Popes - in this thread.  What is lacking here is not so much the documents but a basic understanding of how to interpret them.  

 

AbrideofChrist, disagreeing with your (or anyone else’s) interpretation of Church documents is not the same thing as not knowing how to interpret Church documents in general. 

 

 

 

I use the analogy of the priesthood because  1) the Popes themselves use it [if you did not realize this before, you may want to do some further research in the USACV resources and elsewhere] 2) the Rite of Consecration was deliberately engineered to mirror both marriage and ordination [a fact acknowledged by prominent liturgists and Cardinal Burke as well] 3) as Sr. Mary Catherine stated but didn't source, the Church does have a theology of ontological change but just because you are unfamiliar with it like you were unfamiliar with how the Church understands "moral obligation" does not mean that it doesn't exist in Theology. 

 

1. I’ve read all of the USACV material several times, but I don’t recall any instance where a Pope drew an analogy between consecrated virginity and the priesthood in precisely the same way or in the same respects as you are here in this thread—which, once again, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are wrong, but it DOES mean that your conclusions don’t reflect an authoritative last word on this issue.

 

2. The Rite of Consecration does mirror the rites for ordination in many respects (though I’m not sure we can go so far as to say it was “deliberately engineered” this way), and I’m right with you in feeling that this likeness is quite striking and significant! But consecrated virginity and priesthood still are not the same thing, so any analogy or parallel you make between the two is going to have to break down somewhere.

 

I think one place where it starts to break down is that, while ordination is the only way that a man can become a priest in a sense different from that of baptismal priesthood, I’m not sure that we can tie a special call to be a bride of Christ (i.e., a call to relate to Christ in a spousal way which is different from that to which all the baptized are called) so exclusively to the Rite of Consecration.

 

3. No, I don’t believe that the Church has a theology of ontological change as it applies to consecrated life—i.e., the Church has neither formally affirmed nor (as far as I know) denied that a solemnly consecrated person experiences an ontological change.

 

 

And even if St. Thomas wrote about ontological change in reference to religious profession, this still would not be automatically the same thing as the Church’s teaching on the matter. Besides the fact that Thomism per se isn’t the same thing as the Church’s doctrine, I’m not sure that St. Thomas had quite the same concept of consecrated life as a general category as the Church Fathers, or as we do in the Church today.

 

 

 

4) It appears that you are trying to unduly mystify the nature of consecrated virginity.  Just because the Church has not dogmatically pronounced consecrated virginity to be like the priesthood doesn't mean that the analogy does not apply. The way you are using the term "speculative theology" is by way of implying that it is "speculative" or, in more common language, it may be just pure idle speculation with no need to have a basis in reality.  If you were to understand speculative theology, the way the Church does, you would realize that some objects of speculative theology are more reflective of reality/truth than others, depending on the strength of the argument leading to the conclusion.  Therefore, the strength or weakness of a position lies not in speculation, but in the line of reasoning and how it conforms to the whole of revealed and deduced truth. One solid way of disproving speculative theological propositions is to find solid truths taught by the Church or as found in perennial truth, and showing how it contradicts the object of speculation.  Your assertion merely states that the analogy "might" not be accurate.  It does not prove by revealed or naturally deducible truth that it IS inaccurate.  Therefore, I do not see the point in cautioning people on this thread that this is "speculative theology" since you have no solid reason to do so (other than, say, trying to mystify the nature and essence of consecrated virginity: a goal which would make sense if you want to impose moral obligations based on nebulous or hazy notions of what the essence of consecrated virginity is).

 

4. By “speculative theology,” I mean theological thought and research that is more or less breaking new ground. I wasn’t trying to identify it with “idle speculation.”

 

Also, I’m not trying to mystify consecrated virginity unnecessarily. It’s not mystifying consecrated virginity to delineate what things we know for sure against those elements which have yet to be clarified by the Church. I also don’t think it’s mystifying to point out what areas of the discussion can still admit some different opinions, or to bring up questions which could still legitimately be asked.

 

I am certainly not “mystifying” consecrated virginity in order to impose obligations on people (even if I thought I had the power to impose obligations, which I’ve always been well aware that I don’t)—but even so, my personal intentions aren’t the topic of this thread.

[God's Beloved]

 

 

 

 

 

Hello God's Beloved! You are correct! :) I checked the Ordo Professionis Religiosae again, and see that there is another chapter with alternative texts for women which includes a number of things, like readings, responsorial psalms, prayers, and yes, another Solemn Blessed or Consecration for the Professed which in this case, does not have spousal imagery.

 

Of course, for Dominican Nuns, they would use neither of these, as it is in their tradition that God consecrates a person when they profess the Religious Vows. 

 

In all cases (spousal consecration prayer, non-spousal or no consecration prayer at all), Religious Profession is a deepening of Baptism, as you said and abrideofChrist and others have too. And Baptism is itself a nuptial union with Christ, as we know. (don't mean to state anything new here, but just leading into quoting from the book)

 

"Through baptism each Christian is wed to Christ in the everlasting covenant He has made with His Church. In the one covenant, Christ marries each baptized Christian for better or for worse." The One Bride, pg. 97

 

The book then calls Religious Profession a type of "second baptism" and deepening this marriage with Christ.

 

"With religious profession, the virgin [she uses this word throughout in a general way] realizes a new level of bridal union with Christ. She becomes an ecclesial witness in her whole person. What is innermost in the Church of God (bride-hood with Christ) becomes visible in the professed virgin whose very dress (habit) is a witness of her union with Christ." (pg. 99)

 

"Virginity pledges itself to the eternal nuptials, as it were, in the single decisive act of religious vows: oblation." (102)

 

"Religious vows attach a virgin anew, in a deeper bridal way, to the baptismal gifts of God." (112)

 

"A covenant is forged; the primal union of baptismal marriage is deepened to its maximum meaning." (112)

 

She then goes on for several pages specifically about the Vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, and relates them to Faith, Hope and Love.  

 

"For the virgin love is everything. It is the pearl of great price. Countless virgins have sold all in order to buy it. This all is not only the virgin's own will which she "sells" in obedience for the greater good of true freedom. This all is not only attachment to material possessions or to a false self. This all is the virgin's very person, her entire being, which she delivers up in a direct oblation to her Bridegroom. So total a deliverance is meaningful only in the greater context of the Church's bridal mystery where the Church as virgin-bride gives herself wholly to Christ, and Christ in turn gives Himself to His Church. The virgin realizes and manifests this "high mystery" even here and now in her own deliverance to Christ." (125)

 

"It is for this reason that religious profession may be considered a second baptism. It both reaffirms the virgin's basic baptismal commitment and brings it to flower in chaste and ardent nuptial love. The religious vows, postures of faith, hope and charity, hold the virgin close to the heart of Christ "as locket or bracelet cling." (pg. 130)

 

I have read most of the parts on Religious Profession and then the chapter at the end on Consecrated Virginity, and from what I have understood so far, I can see how they are different, as I already believed. 

 

I am having a hard timing seeing though (from the author's point of view) how Consecration to a Life of Virginity is more of a marriage to Christ than Religious Profession (but here she is speaking of a Nun receiving the Consecration after she has made Profession) She makes a lot of comparisons between Religious Profession and marriage. There is a lot there and I don't think I can quote and organize it all here very well. Most of it was on a spiritual plain, but one I remember was how the individual name is given at Profession as in marriage "I, Sister N ..." Something else in a later chapter speaking of gifts Christ gives to His brides, points out the new religious name, similar to a bride taking the name of her husband. Of course this is allegorical, and there is more in there especially about the vows and the covenant they make and how this relates to marriage.

 

"The covenanted life of a professed virgin and Christ is accomplished in the framework of marital exchange." (135)

 

Later though when she speaks of the Consecrated Virginity, she says how the Church is formally constituting someone as a bride of Christ, It seems like from her perspective though that it is more of a confirmation and heightening of a marriage that already took place... (for a professed nun)

 

"The total deliverance of one's whole being to God, which has been wrought in religious profession, is in virginal consecration not made more certain or complete, for it was that already. Rather, the vowed virgin is now through consecration given the status of a sacred person in the sacramental meaning of the term. Consecration elevates her to a new position in the Church and, in so doing, brings her to an even greater share in all that the Church is and does. In turn the sacredness of her person equips the consecrated virgin to become a more complete witness to the intrinsic holiness of the Church."  (180)

 

"What is the Church consecrating? What is she celebrating? In the rite of consecration, the Church is establishing as sacred not only a person but a virgin-person married to Christ in religious profession. Seeing this mystery as her very own bridal life, the Church celebrates in confirmation in a rite deliberately modeled upon the marriage liturgy, Every detail of the rite accents the literal interpretation of the virgin's marriage to Christ. The unifying idea in the richly integrated consecration rite is that of the virgin's bridehood. It is the totality of bridal surrender as it exists in the person of the virgin-bride that is consecrated and, in a real sense, confirmed publicly in the sacramental rite." (181)

 

"The Preface, sung by the presiding prelate, invokes the Spirit of Christ upon the virgin, constituting her formally a bride of Christ." (182)

 

"As a consecrated bride of Christ, she both shares more profoundly and expresses the nature and function of the one Bride." (183)

 

"The Church's sacramental gestures are the acts of Christ. They effect what they signify. Virginal consecration has placed a new seal of sacredness upon the virgin-bride in her nuptial relationship with Christ. By being celebrated int he Church's rite, this union is also celebrated and ratified in heaven. Above all the sacramental has drawn he virgin more deeply into the Church's own bridehood and into the Holy Spirit's dynamism which surges through the Church. The consecrated virgin-bride now embodies, in the most profound way, the living relationship of the one ecclesial Bride with Christ. She is a concrete proof through and through of this relationship. She is a witnessing mark of the Church's bridal meaning and her total consecration to God. " (184)

 

"Virginal consecration thus brings an unsurpassed nuptial blessing to the virgin-bride, a blessing that, if approached with faith, is seen to be pressed won and running over." (184)

 

 

There is more and again, I am really glad Therese Ivers is re-publishing this. I need to read all of this a few times to understand it better. 

 

I Need to go for now, and may or may not be able to post here again...

 

God bless!

 

 

A comparison between the Prayer of the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Consecration of virgins shows the mention of the sevenfold gifts .

 

In the consecration of virgins it shows how through the impetus of the Spirit a particular gift already received at Confirmation is further fine-tuned  to focus on the particular Charism of consecrated virginity  to love the church community as a virgin , bride of Christ and a mother ........ as a sacramental sign that reminds/ animates  baptized christians to realize their own union with God ,  and to serve the church through apostolic activity .

 

The grace of CV seems to deepen grace of  Sacraments of Initiation : Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist.

 

In the Eucharist  Jesus gives All of Himself to the individual catholic . In the consecration of virgins the union of Christ with His body the Church  is more abiding and  I wonder whether I can say it is permanent . Of course I'm not  speaking about His Real Presence in the Eucharist. But St. Augustine has said about the Eucharist , " Behold who you are, become what you receive " 

[Sponsa-Christi]

As sort of a P.S. to my last post, I just wanted to add that I actually am quite open to arguments saying that becoming a consecrated virgin does involve an ontological change--right now I just don't feel comfortable presenting this idea as though it were already a settled fact (or using this idea as the sole basis for a different argument), since the Church herself has not yet explicitly clarified this.

 

I think, though, that if there is an ontological change associated with becoming a consecrated virgin, that this ontological change might involve something different or in addition to being a bride of Christ. For example, I think the ontological change in the consecration of virgins might be better identified with the candidate becoming a "sacred person."

[God's Beloved]

 The imagery of the Vine and the branches comes to my mind as I reflect on this.

 

I AM the Vine , you  ARE the branches.............speaks about BEING . Ontology is about  BEING.

 

 The imagery of the  union between spouses

 

Eph 5:

31 Scripture says: Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
32 This is a very great mystery, and I refer to Christ and the Church.
 

That's how the candidate becomes a sacred person by receiving the consecration.

[Laurie]

As sort of a P.S. to my last post, I just wanted to add that I actually am quite open to arguments saying that becoming a consecrated virgin does involve an ontological change--right now I just don't feel comfortable presenting this idea as though it were already a settled fact (or using this idea as the sole basis for a different argument), since the Church herself has not yet explicitly clarified this.

 

I think, though, that if there is an ontological change associated with becoming a consecrated virgin, that this ontological change might involve something different or in addition to being a bride of Christ. For example, I think the ontological change in the consecration of virgins might be better identified with the candidate becoming a "sacred person."

 

Sponsa Christi, you might have missed it in the whirlwind of posts. But we did talk about an ontological change being tied to the fact that the consecration of a virgin is a constitutive sacramental. That's what connects her being a sacred person to the consecration bringing about a real change in her. Not sure what page that was on, but it is further back.
 

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, you are certainly welcome to your own opinions. 

 

1. Perhaps you were not present when the USACV distributed copies of what has been said about the priesthood and consecrated virginity.  My bad.  I do sometimes forget that you have not been associated with the USACV for many years.  I also assumed that you had a connection to the internet, which also has a copy of material referring to the priesthood and consecrated virginity! 

 

2.  Just because you do not pay attention to liturgical and historical scholarship on the Rite does not mean that it doesn't exist.  If you had read Cardinal Burke's explanation of the Rite (also available on the internet), you would have seen a huge paragraph devoted to the parallels between ordination and consecration and then subsequent referrals to that theme as he comments on different events in the Rite.  He also cites a scholar on the vocation who has evidence to show that the Liturgical Rite WAS deliberately engineered to look like an ordination in his footnote.  And no, I am not going to copy and paste because it is a simple matter of google research. 

 

3.  Once more, just because your courses in theology did not cover ontological changes pertaining to religious consecration does not mean that the Church doesn't believe in it.  You didn't back up your statement by bringing in an "authoritative" document disproving my position, you simply claim that the Church doesn't teach it as far as YOU can make out. 

 

For the record I am not strict Thomist, so your assumption is a bit off the mark .I actually refer to him because he has some clear teachings about consecrated virginity that I discovered through research and a person would be very hard pressed to disprove his conclusions once they read his thought on the vocation which right now everyone is conveniently ignoring because for some odd reason they can't be bothered to do any high quality research themselves.  Further, I suspect that people really do NOT want to read St. Thomas on consecrated virginity because what he says may force them to re-evaluate or re-define what we understand religious life to actually mean.  Yet, these are the self same people who scurry to use St. Thomas' definitions of vows and discussion on the virtue of religion and the definition of the virtue of virginity to "prove" their point, completely by-passing what he ACTUALLY said about consecrated virginity wherein one could make proper comparisons.  This is scary because if what he says is true, then a person who truly desires to be a perfect image of the Bride of Christ will have to seek out her vocation accordingly.  I do not think that this definition will cause religious congregations to die out but that they will have better informed members. Likewise, the trend for consecrated virginity as being one the largest and ever expanding women's Order in the Church will continue if I'm not mistaken as women realize what that vocation really is.  We should never be afraid of the truth or reject the truth because it goes against pre conceptions and our deeply held feelings.  True scholars and true seekers of the truth will investigate things that may go against their position.  [For this reason I did read the entire ~400 page dissertation that God's Beloved had linked to in post 268 in the hopes that it would bring further clarification to the issues at hand.  I personally was not afraid of the truth be it what it may.]  This is how we use the gift of reason that God gave us.

 

You are for some reason very reluctant to put a definition on the vocation of consecrated virginity.  Yet, definitions point to the "whatness" of a thing.  Surely a consecrated virgin is not distinguished merely by being a "sacred person".  Seems to me I recall learning that religious were considered "sacred" themselves and that it was a sacrilege to use violence against them- male or female!  Thus a non-essential definition of consecrated virginity!  Again, though, this recollection is a distant one, and I'm sure that someone constantly teaching religious theology like Sr. Mary Catherine, could enlighten us on the topic.  I would suggest as a starting point for understanding the nature and essence of the vocation of consecrated virginity, reading the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity.  Reading it in Latin - if you know Latin - might be beneficial.

 

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, you might have missed it in the whirlwind of posts. But we did talk about an ontological change being tied to the fact that the consecration of a virgin is a constitutive sacramental. That's what connects her being a sacred person to the consecration bringing about a real change in her. Not sure what page that was on, but it is further back.

 

Laurie,

 

I know that the consecration of virgins is a constitutive solemn blessing and a sacramental. But I'm just not sure that right now the Church actually teaches that constitutive blessings/sacramentals enact ontological change.

 

When you think about it, not even all of the seven Sacraments enact an ontological change. E.g., married couples certainly go through changes when they marry (canonical, theological, and otherwise), but the Church doesn't call marriage an ontological change.

 

I am open, and even quite sympathetically disposed, to the idea that the consecration of virgins specifically might enact an ontological change--I just don't think right now we can assume that it does simply because it's a constitutive blessing.

 

And, even if we do assume that the consecration of virgins does enact an ontological change, I think we would then still need to demonstrate that becoming a bride of Christ is the sole or direct element of that ontological change...and even if we could do that, then I think it would still take a few more steps in a logical argument to prove that THEREFORE it's wrong for nuns to call themselves "brides of Christ."

 

My main point in all this is that I don't think we can be caviler in saying things like: "nuns are deceiving discerners by calling themselves brides of Christ."

Edited August 1, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[Laurie]

The Magisterium is probably never going to clarify whether the sacramental of the consecration of virgins brings about an ontological change.

 

If we continually "wait for the Magisterium to clarify," we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

That's why we use the Church's scholarship, her theology and her philosophy, to draw the best conclusions we can.

 

I've already explained (using a theologian) why I think it does constitute an ontological change.

 

To object that "the Church doesn't teach X" when "the Church's teaching" is restricted to infallible teachings doesn't advance the discussion, I don't think.

 

[abrideofChrist]

 

My main point in all this is that I don't think we can be caviler in saying things like: "nuns are deceiving discerners by calling themselves brides of Christ."

 

I'm not Laurie, but I think I did demonstrate how it follows that nuns are deceiving discerners by calling themselves brides of Christ.  I never said that they were willfully deceiving just materially deceptive.  When I posted my original post, my goal was to invite open dialogue about our vocation and to see if people had anything substantial to offer in support or against my reasoned conclusions.  Just feeling uncomfortable about something is not a solid argument against my line of reasoning.  A solid argument would come with some direct quotes that essentially back up or disprove what I have been saying for 20 pages!  It seems to me that since no one has been able to disprove what I have been saying, that there is even more of an argument for believing in it!  After all, don't we have "faith seeking understanding?"  I am certainly trying to understand things better but I try to do so with sources that are relevant.  Even magisterial teachings are arrived at through theological reasoning!  I do not think they are given infused knowledge by God on a regular basis.

[Sponsa-Christi]

AbrideofChrist,

 

I think you recent post (# 292) did include a number of personal criticisms which—as you’ve said before—don’t advance the conversation here.

 

I don’t share very much of my personal life online, so I think it’s unfair of you to speculate on exactly what my relationship with the USACV is, or to assume so loudly that my Master’s degree is inadequate (and thus to imply that my canon law program shouldn’t have accepted me), or to suggest that I’m ignorant of scholarship on the history of consecrated virginity and the Rite of Consecration because I disagree with several of the points you’re making here.

 

I also find it quite hurtful when you insinuate that I’m afraid of seeking  the truth.

 

I’m completely fine with people criticizing my arguments, but it’s distracting to have to keep defending my education and my goodwill.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

The Magisterium is probably never going to clarify whether the sacramental of the consecration of virgins brings about an ontological change.

 

If we continually "wait for the Magisterium to clarify," we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

That's why we use the Church's scholarship, her theology and her philosophy, to draw the best conclusions we can.

 

I've already explained (using a theologian) why I think it does constitute an ontological change.

 

To object that "the Church doesn't teach X" when "the Church's teaching" is restricted to infallible teachings doesn't advance the discussion, I don't think.

 

You make a good point in saying that we can't always wait for the magisterium to clarify everything--today's CVs have to live out their vocations now, and often the best we can do is prayerfully discern how we can best "fill in the blanks" ourselves.

 

But this is why I think it's so important not to present the opinions of theologians as if they were magisterial teachings, which--even if it was unintentional--I think has happened at times in this thread.

 

(And as an aside, I just want to highlight the fact that not all magisterial teachings have to be formally declared "infallible" for them to still be authoritative--so the pool of authoritative sources from which we can draw isn't quite as small as it might seem.)

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

2.  Just because you do not pay attention to liturgical and historical scholarship on the Rite does not mean that it doesn't exist.  If you had read Cardinal Burke's explanation of the Rite (also available on the internet), you would have seen a huge paragraph devoted to the parallels between ordination and consecration and then subsequent referrals to that theme as he comments on different events in the Rite.  He also cites a scholar on the vocation who has evidence to show that the Liturgical Rite WAS deliberately engineered to look like an ordination in his footnote.  And no, I am not going to copy and paste because it is a simple matter of google research. 

 

AbrideofChrist:

 

Card. Burke has written many things which could be taken as commentaries on the Rite, and he's mentioned the parallels between the consecration of virgins and ordination in many places. A link--or at least a more specific reference--would be quite helpful here, because from this comment alone it's unclear as to which presentation of his you actually wish to refer. 

 

However, even while I recall parallels which Card. Burke has drawn between the rites for virginal consecration and ordination, I don't remember him making your specific point about ontological change and what this means for "bride of Christ" imagery in religious life.

 

 

 

3.  Once more, just because your courses in theology did not cover ontological changes pertaining to religious consecration does not mean that the Church doesn't believe in it.  You didn't back up your statement by bringing in an "authoritative" document disproving my position, you simply claim that the Church doesn't teach it as far as YOU can make out. 

 

My point was that the Church hasn't commented on this one way or the other. For obvious reasons, I don't think it's possible to provide an authoritative document that proves that the Church has NOT said something. (That would be a little bit like saying: "Raise your hand if you're absent!")

Edited August 1, 2013 by Sponsa-Christi

[abrideofChrist]

Sponsa Christi, I think you have misread me. It is not my concern as to what your relationship is with the USACV.  All I know is that you were not with me and the rest of us at the two occasions when certain handouts were distributed!  In post 28, you reveal who you are and I do not recall seeing you at those meetings.

 

Second, I do not think I have questioned the authority of the people who gave you any degrees you may have or who currently monitor your progress as a student in Rome.  Clearly you have measured up to their expectations, which is all that is necessary for a degree.  I have merely pointed out that the Church does have many definitions of things and many theological and philosophical concepts with which you do not appear to be familiar.  This is merely an observation and again, no one program can be all to all students.  Those who grant degrees must decide what courses are to be required for graduation.  This means that an vast deposit of knowledge will not be transmitted uniformly to each and every student in any given program.  The difficulty comes when the concepts you are trying to discuss in this thread do not appear to have been adequately treated in your classes or obtained by means of scholarly and serious research.  This cannot, in my opinion, be construed as criticism of your courses or programs. 

 

Third, in the second paragraph, the one that you appear to be taking as directed towards yourself as insinuating that you were not seeking the truth, I was very obviously referring to generalities.  You were not the one who talked about St Thomas' distinctions about the virtue of religion vs the virtue of virginity, for example.  What I was not insinuating was the fact that no one has yet produced a quote from St. Thomas on consecrated virginity!    I am neither attacking you personally nor am I attacking your programs of study.  How would I know what courses you took or what you received "according to the manner of the receiver"?  All I have been asking for, is that we be able to return to the original subject which is whether Religious Consecration ESSENTIALLY differs from Virginal Consecration specifically in the matter of the Title of Bride of Christ.

[Laurie]

(And as an aside, I just want to highlight the fact that not all magisterial teachings have to be formally declared "infallible" for them to still be authoritative--so the pool of authoritative sources from which we can draw isn't quite as small as it might seem.)

 

Based upon some of your past responses to things, I didn't realize you understood this point. I'm glad to know that you do.