Bride Of Christ

[MarysLittleFlower]

I've been trying to follow this thread...

 

Perhaps I'm not really one to talk , but I find it sad that we've been arguing about something so holy. It's sad when we as Christians argue about anything. It's really sad when it's about something so holy like being a bride of Christ. I wish that I could become more like the Bridegroom - meek and humble of heart :)

 

I understand the desire we have to correct people, because sometimes this can come from a concern for those who are reading this thread... I can't comment on anyone's intentions, - I hope that my intentions in writing this post aren't tainted with pride, unfortunately it seems much or all that I do is tainted with pride, - I wish it were otherwise but such is our human weakness!

 

I was trying to think about the various posters here... I can't possibly know the intentions or what's in your heart. God knows :) I think AbrideofChrist just wants to talk about the topic, since she started this thread and is trying to inform people about this vocation. I think it's an emotional topic for many. I also think there's been some misunderstanding in the discussions. AbrideofChrist said that she didn't mean to make it sound like the vocation of a CV is superior to religious life. Maybe we could let this go :) but I know this is an emotional topic and I understand how others are feeling too! I also think people have read different things and are coming to this with perhaps different information.

 

I think sometimes, while correction can be charity, maybe it's best to leave it to PM, and also assume the best about each other. If someone made a mistake, that's something they can discern with God and ask Him, as He knows everything. I think there are times when correction is important, like in religious life, or by a spiritual director or confessor - and we've all heard the idea, that a good friend encourages to holiness and is not afraid to make a correction if that's done in charity, for the others' good. Maybe this is something to discern: is the correction done in this thread, on both sides, for the others' good, or not? what does Jesus think of it? Maybe we can ask Him :) I think sometimes correction can become ego-driven, and improperly given, and sometimes people get defensive, - but should we then respond? should we then leave it all to God? I really hope that we can work towards being patient with each other and with the disagreements as well, so that even if people disagree on the topic, we can talk with great charity- that way people can come to this thread and say, "these Christians, how they love one another!". Not saying I'm a good example! lol! Jesus and Mary are good examples :)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

BarbaraTherese,

 

Sr. Laurel does talk about the difference at this thread. http://notesfromstillsong.blogspot.com/2008/08/question-on-private-vows-consecrare.html  Please note that she cites Church documents.  I am not interested in citing documents because I referred people to Sr. Laurel's blog, not you in particular, because she is a theologian and has spent years formally studying this stuff.  I am not terribly interested in the subject and I would prefer to point to a resource than to belabor the issue when it isn't too relevant to the original post.

 

I was not addressing you when I was talking about bullying.  I was talking about people who popped in to attack my character and my intentions and ONLY to do that.  One person has posted at least 5 (maybe all 6) of his/her total posts on this thread attacking me and putting as much of a negative spin on things as he/she could.  This is not Christian behavior. Seems to me they have not had a proper catechesis on how to deliver an admonishment.  You, on the other hand, actually have brought up texts and at least you are willing to discuss your positions.  That is not bullying.  Thank you.

 

[Laurie]

MarysLittleFlower, I think its hard to say what the best method is. Probably each of us responds largey based upon our personalities, and life experience, and the kinds of virtues we are good at.

 

I know I admire your and Sr. Marie's calm demeanor. I admire ABC's strength and pursuit of the truth. I admire God's Beloved, and Sponsa-Christi, and BarbaraTherese for sticking around and contributing even though we don't always agree on points. (There are others I appreciate, too--just can't can't remember all of you right now.)

 

As for myself, I think there is a difference between those who stick around and make a contribution (which might consist of criticisms at times, and criticisms with which I don't agree).

 

That is very different from others who pop by randomly all snotty & self-righteous & rude. I'm not inclined to pretend like such behavior is anything but immature. That's probably because if I myself popped by a forum, and some people were getting nasty, and no one called them on it, I wouldn't assume it was out of charity. I might think everyone there was a nincompoop and didn't know what smelled bad when it was right under their noses. (OK, I'm kidding! Just trying to lighten the old mood.)

 

 

 

 

[Klarisse]

abrideofChrist, after reading almost all of this thread, one thing that I'm not sure about is what you think should change, if you are advocating a change at all. Your posts have implied to me that the status quo regarding spousal language does discerners a disservice.

What do you expect sisters that use bridal imagery to change when they speak about their own calls? Am I correct in interpreting it that they should cease using spousal language? For example, using language like "my wedding" when referring to profession of vows, "to become the spouse of Jesus," "my/our Spouse" or  "to be Your Spouse."

I cannot respond to other points before this is clarified, and Ima Lurker's similar questions on page 23 were missed.

[DameAgnes]

Each CV is answerable first to her Divine Spouse and secondly to her bishop.  As to who assists with our examen, we pray that it is the Holy Spirit.

Can I say, in all sincerity, that this worries me a great deal -- and I say this for your own sake, not to put you down in any way. It smacks of the sort of protestant autonomy that declares unnecessary any sort of spiritual direction or authoritative voice that might challenge, gently correct or advise. Without a spiritual director, or some sort of superior who might be able to give serious guidance, you seem to be saying you and Jesus are just alright as you are; additionally that it is unlikely for you to become lost or mislead because you pray that the Holy Spirit assists in your examen.

 

Unless one has reached an advanced state of spiritual wisdom, it seems to me, such an outlook leaves one open for temptation to ego -- to believe that one's own thinking and conclusions are "endorsed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit" and therefore right, sufficient and unassailable. Even the saints benefited from having someone (perhaps in your case, a humble CV with more experience) who would challenge, question and encourage a deep introspection. I know you are still a fairly young, well-educated woman who can clearly utilize church documents with skill but -- and please forgive me, but I speak as a mother and truly out of concern for your sake -- your large intellect seems to me to emphasize a spirit that seems both less enlarged and a bit flinty. I am concerned that a spiritual assault, such as a "dark night" could wreck havoc on your heart, soul and spirit if you have no one to keep you challenged, and questioning your own motivations. Your intellect seems intact, but I can't help but fear that spiritually you are foundering and using this thread to find some sort of justifying footing. I am concerned for you, and will pray for you. Again, I do not mean for that to sound condescending, and I certainly am not aiming to be cruel, but reading through this thread, I keep thinking that if you were my daughter (physical or spiritual) I would be telling you to take a break, engage deeply with your offices and get a spiritual director. God bless.

[BarbTherese]

Unfortunately, I can't copy and past from Sr Laurel's Stillsong Hermitage blog for some reason and I have referred to her blog rather regularly for one reasons or another.  In the link that BoC gave http://notesfromstil...consecrare.html, Sr Laurel has quite significant things to state about the chaste celibate lay state - important things to read (not only about dedication and consecration) re the celibate lay state.  They are only her opinions and concepts, but interesting and important to read and to have a Church qualified make the comments that she has - while I don't always agree with what she might state.  In this case I did - some of it.    A real loss that one cannot copy and paste from the site giving SrLaurel, of course, credit.

Not being in the consecrated state, I am not too interested in this thread other than checking in now and then to try to discern where things might be at, or heading towards - seeing if it has at all gone off in the direction of the celibate chaste lay state in life by some chance. 

 

I have laboured the lay celibate chaste state, as it is my own vocation, and the subject had been indirectly raised by BoC addressing me in particular and in what I felt was a quite patronizing manner.  She may not have intended this at all, but it was how I felt reading her words - being condescended to and patronized, 'patted on the head'.

 

  I realised that BoC was not referring to me re bullying, well at least I presupposed she wasn't, but commented on the word itself anyway.

 

[abrideofChrist]

Can I say, in all sincerity, that this worries me a great deal -- and I say this for your own sake, not to put you down in any way. It smacks of the sort of protestant autonomy that declares unnecessary any sort of spiritual direction or authoritative voice that might challenge, gently correct or advise. Without a spiritual director, or some sort of superior who might be able to give serious guidance, you seem to be saying you and Jesus are just alright as you are; additionally that it is unlikely for you to become lost or mislead because you pray that the Holy Spirit assists in your examen.

 

Unless one has reached an advanced state of spiritual wisdom, it seems to me, such an outlook leaves one open for temptation to ego -- to believe that one's own thinking and conclusions are "endorsed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit" and therefore right, sufficient and unassailable. Even the saints benefited from having someone (perhaps in your case, a humble CV with more experience) who would challenge, question and encourage a deep introspection. I know you are still a fairly young, well-educated woman who can clearly utilize church documents with skill but -- and please forgive me, but I speak as a mother and truly out of concern for your sake -- your large intellect seems to me to emphasize a spirit that seems both less enlarged and a bit flinty. I am concerned that a spiritual assault, such as a "dark night" could wreck havoc on your heart, soul and spirit if you have no one to keep you challenged, and questioning your own motivations. Your intellect seems intact, but I can't help but fear that spiritually you are foundering and using this thread to find some sort of justifying footing. I am concerned for you, and will pray for you. Again, I do not mean for that to sound condescending, and I certainly am not aiming to be cruel, but reading through this thread, I keep thinking that if you were my daughter (physical or spiritual) I would be telling you to take a break, engage deeply with your offices and get a spiritual director. God bless.

 

I am sorry if this worries you.  I spoke the truth and you read far more into what I wrote or derived something out of what I didn't write than what I actually said.  I said Christ is my Spouse.  I am directly HIS responsibility.  Seeing that I was espoused to Him by my bishop, I cannot say otherwise.  This is not Protestant, this is factual. 

 

Second, I said after Him, my bishop is in charge.  Again, I have no idea why this would be Protestant.  Most Protestants have NO bishop.  Nor are their consecrated virgins given a new special father-daughter bond that is created with the Consecration.  (Cf. Introduction N. 2 of the Rite of Consecration). 

 

Third, a spiritual director is not a requirement for consecrated virgins or any other person in the Church.  How individuals CVs live their vocation is really up them and their bishop. 

 

Anything beyond that is mere speculation on how I live my vocation individually and I am not open to hearing speculation on what spiritual direction I do or do not employ, how often I go to confession, or anything else that is really not anyone's business on this forum.  Just for the record, I would be willing to print out this entire thread and give it to my bishop but he has more important things to worry about like the actual disrespect shown to religious in my area, who get spat upon.

 

Fourth, I have never stated my age or shared much of my life experience.  Speculation on this subject leads nowhere. 

 

Fifth, I have talked to CVs and incorporated some of what they have said or written in many of my posts on the forum.  Not all CVs have elected to share their thoughts on a website and some see a need for bringing things up now and then.  For all you know, I could be a composite person.  I don't mean what I said in an unkind way, but I am very tired of speculation about the state of my soul, my age, my tone, my emotional abilities (cf. Lillabettte's assertion that I might be autistic), or anything else that is by nature private and not open for judgmental speculation. 

[By His Grace Alone]

abrideofChrist, after reading almost all of this thread, one thing that I'm not sure about is what you think should change, if you are advocating a change at all. Your posts have implied to me that the status quo regarding spousal language does discerners a disservice.

What do you expect sisters that use bridal imagery to change when they speak about their own calls? Am I correct in interpreting it that they should cease using spousal language? For example, using language like "my wedding" when referring to profession of vows, "to become the spouse of Jesus," "my/our Spouse" or "to be Your Spouse."

I cannot respond to other points before this is clarified, and Ima Lurker's similar questions on page 23 were missed.

Please answer this.

[BarbTherese]

I am awed by consecrated virginity and have been since I first heard about the vocation, not that I ever felt in any way called, either when I was a physical virgin nor now that I am not.  It is a stunning matter and a great honour of Grace. 

 

http://consecratedvirgins.org/elements

• Central Elements of Consecrated Virginity

 

 

 

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/CONSVIRG.htm

• What is the Consecration of a Virgin
• Who Can be Consecrated

[abrideofChrist]

abrideofChrist, after reading almost all of this thread, one thing that I'm not sure about is what you think should change, if you are advocating a change at all. Your posts have implied to me that the status quo regarding spousal language does discerners a disservice.

What do you expect sisters that use bridal imagery to change when they speak about their own calls? Am I correct in interpreting it that they should cease using spousal language? For example, using language like "my wedding" when referring to profession of vows, "to become the spouse of Jesus," "my/our Spouse" or  "to be Your Spouse."

I cannot respond to other points before this is clarified, and Ima Lurker's similar questions on page 23 were missed.

 

Klarisse and Ima Lurker,

 

Sorry about the delay in getting back with you.  Life is busy and takes over sometimes! 

 

I think it would be very helpful for people who are discerning their vocations to be told by active religious sisters and non-CV orders that have an emphasis on bridal imagery, that their community has a "bridal spirituality" or "spousal devotion" to Jesus.  Currently, when some sisters put in their literature things like becoming a "bride of Christ", this makes a discerner believe that they in actual fact become a bride of Christ in the manner a CV does (without necessarily knowing what a CV is!).  Let me explain what I just said.  A CV becomes a bride of Christ by the essence of her vocation.  A religious nun or sister does not!  Many believe that they ARE a bride of Christ the same way a CV IS!  This is factually incorrect.  A religious sister by definition is NOT a bride of Christ by essence.  She participates in the spousal nature of the Church more completely than say a lay person, but she is NOT a bride of Christ by definition! 

 

This is a philosophical and theological distinction that is extremely important to understand correctly.  IF something is NOT something by DEFINITION, than IT is something ELSE!  If the essence of being a religious IS NOT being a Bride of Christ, then the essence is what needs to be emphasized!  The essence of religious life IS NOT being a Bride of Christ as has been pointed out numerous times.  So, what is it?  Its definition includes the vowed evangelical counsels, communal life, and separation from the world!  This is NOT the definition of consecrated virginity.  The definition of consecrated virginity is a spousal relationship with Christ.  Full stop.  Period.  Therefore, its essence must BE to BE a bride of Christ.  The definition of a religious is NOT the same.  Therefore, a religious cannot by definition BE a bride of Christ. 

 

This may seem like a hairsplitting definition but it is not hairsplitting any more than figuring out the difference between a priest by virtue of baptism and a priest by virtue of ordination is.  So, we talk about the participation of the faithful in the priesthood of Christ.  They ARE priests but only a few are actually ORDAINED PRIESTS.  We refer to ORDAINED priests as priests even though everyone shares in the priesthood to make absolutely certain that everyone knows that there is something essentially different between the ordained priest and the common priest.

 

There would be nothing wrong for a community of women religious to talk about their priestly mission and apostolate because by definition, all baptized persons share in the priesthood of Christ!  But it would be wrong for a community of women religious to advertise themselves as Priests because women who join the community will have in mind the fullness of ordained ministry and NOT the common priesthood!  They would think that if a group of sisters advertised themselves as being a priestly community, that they would be priests just the same way as ordained priests!  Again, it is TRUE that we all share in the priesthood of Christ.  But we have to make sure that people really understand that ordained priesthood and common priesthood are by definition and essence DIFFERENT.  There is nothing wrong for a individual sister having a priestly spirituality or a priestly devotion.  Nor is there anything wrong for a monk to have a priestly spirituality or a priestly devotion even if he is non ordained or an individual nun having a spousal devotion.  But it would be misleading if non-ordained mens communities advertised themselves as priests or womens communities did the same on the basis of their common priesthood.  Likewise, a community can have a bridal spirituality or a bridal devotion to Jesus but to advertise their vocation as being a bride of Christ when there is an actual vocation to be a bride of Christ by definition is misleading because women would believe that they are brides of Christ in the exact same way that CVs are (by definition rather than by participation).  And again, I repeat that there are religious nuns who are also consecrated virgins.  The very fact that religious life can allow for ordination of men to the priesthood or the consecration of women to be the bride of Christ means that religious life and therefore religious consecration cannot be either the priesthood or bridal relationship to Christ by nature!

 

There is no harm in having wedding dresses or anything like that, as long as the women know that these traditions come originally from the fact that all religious women were consecrated virgins at the beginning of religious life and that consecrated virgins are the only ones (whether they be nuns or women living in the world) who actually share the full identity of the Church as Bride of Christ.  Right now, women are not given the distinction, and this is problematic because they really do believe they share the full identity of the Church as Bride of Christ when they don't.  Again, this really comes down to where the CV nun and the CV living in the world shares the title univocally with the Church and religious share the title derivatively.  If religious sisters do not make the distinction, then women do not know they are missing out on the possibility of becoming a bride of Christ in a vocation which has being bride of Christ as its essence.  To put this more simply.  The consecration of virginity is a consecration that makes a woman become a bride of Christ by definition. 

 

The consecration of religious makes the person become a religious person.  That is why some religious people also want to be a bride of Christ in the full and perfect way and request and receive the consecration of virginity in addition to their religious consecration.  This is similar to how the ordination of men is a consecration of their being which gives them the power to minister.  The consecration of religious makes the person become a religious.  This why some religious people also want to become a priest of Christ in the full and perfect way and request and receive the ordination to the priesthood in addition to their religious consecration.  At stake here is the fact that virginal consecration constitutes the person a bride of Christ which is different than making a person share in the bridal imagery of the Church in a deeper degree.

 

To wrap up, I don't have a problem with women religious communities telling candidates that they have a bridal spirituality.  I do have a problem with them saying that they BECOME brides of Christ because we associate the term with the fullness and complete imaging of the bride of Christ which is limited to CVs!  Let me put this in a different way to be absolutely clear.  Is it not true that when I posted my original posts, almost everyone believed that nuns ARE the brides of Christ?  Is this not why there is so much animosity on this thread?  Is it not true that the heart of the difficulty in accepting this is because for so long, nuns and sisters have been identified by the title of Bride of Christ even though it turns out that this title is conferred by the Church ONLY on CV nuns and CVs living in the world?  This is why I believe that people NEED to know the difference so that they can examine their hearts and see if they are called to be a bride of Christ in the full way as opposed to being a bride of Christ in a participating way.  We don't have a problem with this for men since we have long been catechized as to the difference between the common priesthood and ordained priesthood.  Now we just have to catch up when it comes to the common bridal relationship with Christ and the consecrated bridal relationship with Christ.

[God's Beloved]

Thanks for your humble post, Lil'Nun :) I see what you are saying... It is not for me to decide if I would be a bride of Christ or not, that is His decision, and I can't presume upon it, or who He chooses. If He calls me to be a littlest servant, I hope I'll have the grace and humility to accept that fully.

 

God's Beloved, - regarding how many religious see themselves as brides of Christ.. I've mostly looked into more traditional habited orders. Of those, many used bridal or spousal imagery on their websites or I would guess would have a bridal spirituality. To me that's very significant. I don't want to speak against the other orders - but I know there are some really liberal ones that might not follow all the Church teachings or want ordination of women etc as you said - if an order wants ordination of women, or is really liberal in other ways, I wouldn't really doubt bridal imagery in general just because they don't use it. I'd look at the orders that are following the Church's traditions faithfully. By the way, I'm not saying that all active orders are liberal, or anything like that: I'm commenting on the actually liberal ones. Unfortunately it seems there are such orders, but - the traditional ones are the ones that are growing.

 

 

I'm a little puzzled... if Consecrated Virgins are brides of Christ, - men aren' t brides of Christ (unless we're talking about the soul being made to unite with God in Heaven, as part of the Church). Plus there isn't a tradition for it. For men, it sounds like more like a 'dedication to be celibate for the Kingdom' or something - not being His brides, which is confusing and men wouldn't be drawn to that anyway unless we're talking about the soul being part of the Church. So I wonder if that's what they're talking about or not, maybe they didn't give more info, so maybe giving them the benefit of the doubt since I don't know what is being referred to... it would need to be examined by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, as AbrideofChrist said.

 

Regarding what you said about facing new questions today - I think that there are some things to consider... one is that Catholic dogma doesn't change. (even if someone tries to change it, we can't change it, it's revelation from God). Regarding non dogmatic traditions, - that's still considered as basis for practices in the Church... I can't speak for the Church, or make these types of decisions, as I'm not a Bishop/Cardinal/Pope, (haha obviously) - but our traditions are important.

 

In my own life - I'm drawn to the more traditional practices, and I find they give me peace. Even if something else is allowed as an indult, etc, - I still like the follow the traditional way myself, again because it helps me spiritually the most. :)

 

Dear MarysLittleFlower,

 

Sorry for the delay in responding to your sharing. I respect your desire to follow a more traditional way of understanding and living the faith.

Not sure whether I understood you right , but if you are indicating that the LCWR or the more liberal religious institutions - do not so much link the bridal imagery to their religious profession -"because of liberal thinking not in accordance with Church teachings" ----then I disagree.

 

As I've said in a previous post  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-18#entry2611962 and  http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-18#entry2611982  the Official Rite of religious profession for women has  TWO versions of the Blessing . One has spousal imagery, the other does not. I've also added a link to the Rite of Profession adapted to one of the religious congregations, approved by the Congregation for Inst of Cons life  in Rome in yr 2012 . It also mentions two possible versions of the Blessing. So within the same congregation they have some who follow bridal spirituality and some who do not. This does not mean some of them are traditonal and some are liberal and not following tradition of spousal imagery.

 

The fact is that religious life whether for men or women  does not have bridal imagery as the essence at the individual level. Religious life in general does image the marriage of the Church with Christ......this is in the Symbolic sense . This does not mean that  a religious is less United with Christ . He is as precious to her and she is as precious to Christ  as it would be if she were a CV instead.

 

What is being said is that  CV have the right and the  monopoly over the title Bride of Christ  because this is the VERY CHARISM of OCV and canonically  every form of consecrated life has the right to Protect its charism from being diluted . If religious institutes advertize that by joining them one gets the title of Bride of Christ , then this is diluting the Charism of OCV and relativizing it to say the Consecrated virginity belongs to and is part of Religious life.

 

Similarly , if OCV advertizes  that by becoming a consecrated virgin one can call oneself a Religious , then this is diluting the Charism of Religous life which is based on explicit profession of the Evangelical counsels of Obedience, Chastity and Poverty etc and relativizing  it to say that Religious life belongs to and is part of the Order of Consecrated virgins.

 

--If Religious find that some CV is calling herself a Religious then  they have the right to ask the CV to Stop calling herself a Religious. But every CV has the right through Baptism to live the evangelical counsels.

 

--If CV find that an  individual Religious  is claiming the title of Bride of Christ publicly , then she has the right to ask the individual Religious to Stop doing so. But every individual Religious has the right through Baptism to live her relationship with Christ  in a spousal spirituality.

 

Another interesting fact is that some very ancient monastics such as the Benedictines  do not have vows. They have promises of Obedience, Stability and Conversion. The evangelical counsels of Poverty and Chastity are  implicit in the monastic life without being defined as such.

 

Religious life in most religions is a way of Asceticism . Traditionally it focused on Union with God , but not necessarily in a Spousal way which always remained Optional. IT HAS BEEN THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH THAT SPOUSAL IMAGERY IN RELIGIOUS LIFE  IS OPTIONAL NOT MANDATORY.  So Religious who do not use spousal imagery are still very much Traditonal and within the teachings of the Church.

[MarysLittleFlower]

God's Beloved,

 

Thanks for the reply. My point was not directed towards any particular order - much less any particular Sister - but towards a "hypothetical" liberal order that is truly liberal in its views. I think that if the order really dislikes bridal imagery - that's a warning sign for me because why would this be? There are Sisters who don't reject it, but for them it's not the primary way of relating to Christ. I'm NOT going to comment on them  because this doesn't point in itself to them being liberal, and I have no right to judge a Sister's heart and how she sees Christ. But when looking at an order as a discerner, I've noticed the ones that don't reject, or actively like, bridal imagery, tend to also be very faithful to the Church teachings and more traditional.

 

I was wondering why that is. I think that liberalism itself has a pattern. It is less centered on the person on Christ. In general liberalism, - it seems to all be about social justice, for example, with no emphasis on personal sanctification or prayer. It becomes more secular. I think it's analogous for religious life: if an order is liberal, I don't think this would result in a growing emphasis on Christ Himself - but on what could be done, actions, etc. A Sister in the order might struggle with this, (so I'm not saying all the Sisters in "liberalized orders" are liberal themselves) - but eventually the order might not be very helpful to her, or it might become difficult for her to be there.

 

Fr Thomas Dubay actually talks about this in "And You are Christ's":

 

"The second difficulty is the resistance some women feel to what they consider a sentimentalization of their vication. The terms wedding, marriage, and bride when applied to vowed chastity bring to their minds images of romanticizing complete with gowns, lace, and rice. It is not their concept of the evangelical counsels. If I may be permitted to make a somewhat educated guess, I would say that the preceding sentence strikes at the core of their difficulty. If a study were to be made of why some women resist the idea of virginity being a bridal relationship and if the study could tap the unconscious, I would expect that seeing their life as a career rather than a vocation of being in love would emerge as the real source of the difficulty. Surely religious who see their life primarily, if not exclusively, as a job to be done are likely enough to reject spousal love as foreign to what they are about. On the other hand, those who view their vows as chiefly aimed at being in love with God are easily and naturally included and attracted to the nuptial explanation. As we shall shortly explain, the latter is the biblical view of the people of God in general and the virgin in particular". (p. 39-40).

 

I think if an order just doesn't contain bridal imagery but seems to be very orthodox, I wouldn't call it "liberal" from that, just in the same way that I wouldn't call any Sister "liberal" if she doesn't primarily focus on bridal imagery. However, if an order really dislikes this imagery and *rejects* it, that would be strange to me.

 

There's the whole question in this thread, whether religious are brides of Christ or not. I still find it interesting that Fr Thomas Dubay doesn't distinguish CV and religious life in this book very much: he talks about the spousal component but for all "virgins" who give themselves to God. Even in the quote, there's the phrase: "the virgin in particular".

 

He also says in the same chapter:

 

"Actually there is no more apt and normal image of an intimate, total self-gift between two in love than the spousal one"

 

Then he mentions Biblical spousal imagery for the Church, but then:

 

"The individual consecrated virgin [consecrated virgin? consecrated woman who's a virgin? this book seems to be written for religious too...] embraces a way of life in which she so exclusively focuses on her one Beloved that she declines a marital relationship with any other man. When Saint Paul explains who a virgin is, he makes this very point in three ways. First, he deals with virginity in a spousal context, immediately after considering earthly marriage. Second, he declares that the dedicated virgin is related to Christ as a married woman is related to her husband. Third, he indicates that she gives to Him an undivided attention, which, as undivided, is a marital preoccupation (1 Cor 7:32-35). What the whole Church is to be, the individual virgin does by vocation and with no merely human spousal intermediary. She is a bride singlemindedly seeking her Beloved...  The liturgy for virgin saints and for religious profession of women repeatedly summarizes this tradition and bestows on it the authority of universal worship. Saint Ambrose (fourth century) encapsulated the idea in his brief definition "virgo est quae Deo nubit" ( a virgin is a woman who has married God). We see an immediate consequence of this truth: a communion of love, deep prayer, and absorption in the Beloved must be the primary purpose of virginal life" (p. 41-42, And You are Christ's, Fr Thomas Dubay, Ignatius Press)

 

So when I read this, I don't really know  FOR SURE what Fr Thomas Dubay meant... so it could be that you're all correct and I'm misunderstanding him. But if I just look at these points, it seems that:

 

- simply by giving one's virginity to God, one becomes a bride, because this is spousal

- Fr Thomas doesn't just talk about CVs here, but mentions "religious profession" as well, right before quoting St Ambrose about virgins "marrying God".

 

That's one of the reasons this thread is difficult for me to understand.. because frankly, why would anyone give up marriage, if it wasn't for a higher Love? Granted, priests also live celibately and they're not "brides of Christ" in their vocation. But also, they're men. But I'm going back to the encyclical about women: it talks about women as either being wives/mothers or brides of Christ if they dedicate their virginity to Him: could it be that if a *woman* gives herself to God in this way, that's somehow already bridal?

 

Either this OR it's bridal by 'participation', so I'm still trying to understand what this means. Maybe you and AbrideofChrist are correct, I don't know. I need to study this more. But the quotes from this book, seem to be implying that - what the whole Church is, the virgin is... but this isn't just said about CVs, but about "religious profession" too, since they're mentioned in the SAME paragraph. This is exactly how AbrideofChrist described what a CV is: she's a bride as the Church is a bride. We can see this in the Rite. But here, Fr Thomas SEEMS to be saying the same thing about religious! What are all your thoughts on this? Now maybe I misunderstood him... but if we just take what he said literally...

 

Does Fr Thomas said ANYWHERE ELSE that a CV is different than a religious in the way she's a bride of Christ??? this might change things. Anyone know? But so far - he doesn't seem to be differentiating and is talking about both as "brides", mirroring the Church, and "marrying God". In any case, we can use this to support the use of bridal imagery by religious orders.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the vocation to Consecrated Virginity, especially as I'm discerning my vocation. I understand and accept that a Consecrated Virgin is a bride of Christ. I still need to examine more the claims about religious not *being* brides directly. Right now, i'm trying to sort of not make any judgement, and just wait... but personally, I think it makes sense for them to use bridal imagery because they have given up marriage to give themselves fully to God, they're women, and a number of orders are drawn to bridal imagery.

 

I looked through the book "Way of Divine Love" by Sr Josefa Menendez last night. I know it was stated before that it's private revelation. I'm not a scholar and mostly what I read is either lives of the Saints, or private revelations, or works on spirituality and prayer. The more theological books I have don't deal as much with philosophy. I think that "Way of Divine Love" really helps to understand many things from Jesus' perspective - and because He often talks about consecrated souls in the book, I thought it could me to understand religious life from His perspective as well. I don't think that the fact that it's private revelation means that we could just dismiss it: after all, private revelation that's true is from the same source as public revelation: it's from God, so it *goes together* with public revelation since God doesn't contradict Himself. The book "Way of Divine Love" goes with public revelation very well, excellently, in fact, - and the Church has agreed, and approved the book some years after Sr Josefa's death. So I thought - I hope it would be okay if - I shared these quotes, simply that we might pray about them. I'm not trying to interpret them, make an argument from them, or speak for Our Lord about what He meant. He knows what He meant, I have a copy of the book with the quotes, - hopefully if it's His will, we can ask Him to guide us in this because - He knows what He meant in this quotes :) So either this was just something for her personally, or it's related to religious life. I think we can make it clear though from this that Jesus did consider Sr Josefa to be His bride. So if He did, I can't argue with Him :) I just think - maybe we shouldn't go into such detail about who's NOT a bride of Christ... just leave that to Him. :)

 

"...Henceforth, Josefa, call Me nothing but Father and Spouse. If you are faithful, we shall make this pact together: Bride and Bridegroom, espoused to one another, you Mine, and I yours." (p. 40).

 

"On Wednesday, 11th of January, her Director, in order to strengthen her, proposed to her to advance her Vows by making a Vow of Chastity... "Josefa, My bride, do you know what your Superiors have obtained by that vow? ...They have constrained My Heart to have exceptional care of you. Tell them that it has given Me much glory". (p. 128)

 

"To-day He Himself was about to lead her to the accomplishment of His great plans. The alliance was about to be sealed before Heaven and earth; and she would become His consecrated bride..." (p. 166)

 

"Is it of your own free will that you renounce the world and all worldly hopes and expectations? And do you take Jesus Christ for your Spouse with all your heart?" (p. 167)

 

"As soon as Josefa had made her vows it became clear that God had chosen her with a view to a great plan of love. All the grace of her vocation, developed in her soul by divine love, had prepared her for this work. As Spouse of the Heart of Jesus, she must be fro Him a living response of love... and He had revealed to her the secret of the love that He looks for from His Society: "the most tender and most generous love". As Spouse of His Heart, she must penetrate into its wound, fathom its depths and unite herself with His sorrow at the blindness and loss of souls... He had taught her that a life surrendered and united to Him in reparation had redemptive power. As Spouse of His Heart, chosen by this God and Saviour to be an instrument of His love and mercy for souls whom He loves so tenderly, she must share His intense longing for them... and He had shared with her the burning zeal of His Heart, by showing her the whole world as an object of their mutual love. During the years of her religious formation, therefore, she had penetrated deeply into the grace of the special vocation by which every religious of the Sacred Heart is called to live as Spouse, Victim, and Apostle" (p. 177).

 

"Tell Me once again your joy in being My bride!" (p. 373)

 

"Fear not," reiterated her Master. "I am Jesus, I am the Spouse to whom you are united by those vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience which you have just renewed. I am the God of Peace!" These words brought with them such conviction and security that all hesitation was at an end. "Without my willing it," she wrote, "so great a light came to my understanding, that I felt convinced that it was indeed He..."(p. 399).

 

"See, daughter," said Our Lady, "what Jesus in His infinite mercy has done for His little bride, not because of your merits, but because of those in His Heart. And now that you are clothed with this very pure garment [a white tunic brought by Angels], your Bridegroom will give you the kiss of peace and love. Surrender yourself wholly into His hands, for in these divine hands you are safe. He will accompany you to your eternal home, and Himself will present you to the citizens of Heaven" (p. 430)

 

"When the anointings were concluded, the Bishop addressed a few fervent words to Josefa, but she knew nothing of them, for she was still in deep ecstasy, though her attitude barely betrayed the fact. The Veni Creator and liturgical prayers by which the Church blesses the cross and ring followed, but she remained unconscious of all. Jesus then joined Our Lady and Saint Madeleine Sophie, and it was in their presence that the newly Professed answered the questions of the Ritual in a firm voice.

"Do you consent to take Jesus Christ Crucified for your Spouse?"
"Yes, Father, with all my heart".

"Receive, then, this ring as a sign of the eternal alliance you are about to contract with Him".

And handling her the little cross which she was henceforth to wear upon her heart: "Receive, my child, this precious pledge of the love of Jesus Christ, and remember that in becoming His Spouse you must live henceforth in union and conformity with His Divine Heart..."

[after, Jesus told her]

"Come, lean on My Heart and rest there, since you are My bride. Soon you will enter this abode never to leave it..."

(p. 431)

 

[regarding consecrated souls who are lost] "The soul constantly recalls how she had chosen her God for her Spouse, and that once she loved Him above all things...that for Him she had renounced the most legitimate pleasures and all she held dearest on earth, that in the beginning of her religious life she had felt all the purity, sweetness and strength of this divine love, and that for inordinate passion... now she must continually hate the God who had chosen to love her" (p. 477)

 

(that last part is so frightening :( )

 

I agree that CVs are brides of Christ, and that their Consecration is something special, as its something so explicitly stated in their Rite. However, I think these quotes show that Jesus does see Sr Josefa as His bride.

 

We can see in the book that other souls too, who are religious but weren't faithful like Sr Josefa, chose Him for their Spouse (like described in the last paragraph - although it's really a warning, and so scary too! :( definitely something to keep in mind, and always be faithful to Him!).

 

So I guess all i'm saying is - I'm leaving this to Him :)

 

 

[abrideofChrist]

I think if an order just doesn't contain bridal imagery but seems to be very orthodox, I wouldn't call it "liberal" from that, just in the same way that I wouldn't call any Sister "liberal" if she doesn't primarily focus on bridal imagery. However, if an order really dislikes this imagery and *rejects* it, that would be strange to me.

 

- simply by giving one's virginity to God, one becomes a bride, because this is spousal

- Fr Thomas doesn't just talk about CVs here, but mentions "religious profession" as well, right before quoting St Ambrose about virgins "marrying God".

 

That's one of the reasons this thread is difficult for me to understand.. because frankly, why would anyone give up marriage, if it wasn't for a higher Love? Granted, priests also live celibately and they're not "brides of Christ" in their vocation. But also, they're men. But I'm going back to the encyclical about women: it talks about women as either being wives/mothers or brides of Christ if they dedicate their virginity to Him: could it be that if a *woman* gives herself to God in this way, that's somehow already bridal?

 

A couple of thoughts, Mary's Little Flower. 

 

First, you've got to remember that once Vatican II came and the religious were required to adjust, reform, and return to the spirit of their founders, they had to face the terrifying question of what was it that made them religious.  Was it their habits?  Was it an over sentimental bridal spirituality that did little good as opposed to a balanced bridal spirituality?  Was it vows?  Was it a consecration?  was it being poor?  Was it being "good" people?  Was it being "holier" than lay persons?  What exactly made them religious?  Then they began to reflect upon the fact that men were called to be religious.  Many of these men are not priests.  They are brothers.  Nothing makes a brother different than a sister than the fact that he has a male body and she has a female body.  They make the same vows, live the same in community, etc.  So, applying the title Bride of Christ just really isn't very appropriate for brothers, and still less for priest monks as THE definition for religious life.  Again, priesthood is restricted to men and being a bride of Christ in the complete way is restricted to women virgins.  So neither of these can be religious life.  If religious life means bride of Christ, then as God's beloved points out, brides of christ means religious which is not the case for CVs per se.  If religious life means priesthood then religious life cannot mean being bride of Christ.  So the three terms of priesthood, religious life, and bride of Christ are separate and indicate three different realities. 

 

You will notice that in Dubay's And You Are Christ's (and I am typing from memory so my paraphrase may not be exact), he says that his book is an analogy for religious WOMEN and religious men have to understand it appropriately.  In other words, he's acknowledged that men and women religious make the same vows but that a woman's call will involve more of a bridal spirituality than a man's call to the same kind of lifestyle. 

 

Also, if you'll read my first or second post in this thread, I did quote verbatim from Fr. Dubay.  I know I quoted from two separate books or articles and I don't think either of them were And You Are Christ's.  I do not have the time or desire to read up and figure out where I got those quotes, (Dubay wrote extensively) but he was pretty clear about the fact that religious share (participate) to a certain extent in the consecrated virgin's sign value.  This he has said in more than one place in his writings.  He doesn't belabor the point because most of the women he's addressing are interested in religious life and not in consecrated virginity. 

 

Please understand that he did have a very good grasp of the differences and he even gave a talk to the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins when the ass'n was in its infancy with few members!  I do not have a copy of that talk(s) - nor was I present - and it probably would have been very enlightening.  But I do know from talking to some CVs who had them as spiritual directors that both Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M. and Fr. John Hardon, S.J. helped them to identify their core vocation as bridal and to choose consecrated virginity instead of religious life as a result.

 

 

Does Fr Thomas said ANYWHERE ELSE that a CV is different than a religious in the way she's a bride of Christ??? this might change things. Anyone know? But so far - he doesn't seem to be differentiating and is talking about both as "brides", mirroring the Church, and "marrying God". In any case, we can use this to support the use of bridal imagery by religious orders.

 

 

Um, does Fr. Dubay say anywhere that a male religious is different than a female religious?  Would this change anything?  Why?

 

MarysLittleFlower, here's another thought for you to consider.  You are asking excellent questions.  Many of us have given you answers.  You are saying you don't understand these answers.  Maybe it's time to reframe the questions and answers for yourself so that you can begin to understand where some of us are coming from.  For example, I have repeatedly said that we CANNOT identify religious life with being a bride of Christ the way a CV is because we have priest-monks and just monks.  Why do you think I said that?  And I mean, what is below the surface in what I said?  Some of us have talked about essence and participation.  Maybe it would be a good idea to pick up the phone and talk to your diocesan chancery and ask them to refer you to a theologian or a philosopher to whom you can ask a few questions if those are concepts you are not comfortable with. 

 

What I am trying to express is that oftentimes we have to come to grips with these concepts ourselves so that we "own" the answers and really understand them as opposed to asking someone and getting a response we don't really understand because we don't know everything that went into crafting that response.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about.  Let's say you bring in your pet cat to the vet.  The vet prescribes a treatment for your cat's ailment.  You follow it.  You follow it oftentimes because you know he's an expert in his field and not because you really understand the mechanisms of what make the treatment work.  Likewise, you can believe that priests are different from the common priesthood, because this has been handed down to you by an expert.  But it really takes some pondering and grappling with the idea when you have to defend this difference to a Protestant who believes that there is no need for ordained priesthood because everyone is a priest!  Or when you have to grapple with the idea that only men can become ordained priests.  Just what is it that a man priest does that a woman couldn't do?  Do you see what I'm saying?  A very "simple" thing can actually have a whole lot of meaning beneath the surface.  To really understand that ordained ministry is different and why is a LOT different than memorizing the definition.  That is why I think in your case what you'll need to do is grapple with some tough questions.  Why are so many different things called bride of Christ?  Why did Dubay write about the 4 different ways?  Why?  Does it make sense with what I know the Church teaches?  Do I know for sure that it is against Church teaching to not emphasize a bridal spirituality for all religious?  Why?  Does a bridal spirituality make sense for priest religious?  Men religious?  Why?  How?  Why do we call mystics brides of Christ even if they are male?  Why?  In what way do we mean it?  See, these are deep questions.  Dubay gave a deceptively simple answer, but to understand his answer, you've got to own it by seriously reading the documents and re reading and asking those deceptively simple questions...
 

[abrideofChrist]

Continued.  Then, you'll come up with theories.  These theories will have to be cohesive and give logical answers to the different problems and correspond to the truth for them to stand.  Let me give you an example.  If you identify religious life as having its essence women being the bride of Christ, then what is its essence for men?  Is it okay that a priest who is a monk is the bride of Christ? Or is it not okay for a male person to be both the Bride of Christ fully represented in his body and the Other Christ fully represented in his body at the same time?  Why?  Obviously if it is not okay, then we need to try a different hypothesis.  There are so many questions you can ask!  What is the definition of religious life for men?  Does it have to do something about the priesthood since some religious men are priests?  Does it have to do with being a bride of Christ?  Or does it have to do something with vows?  Without asking relevant questions to make sure you're on the right track, you'll not be able to properly interpret things like Sr. Josepha's private revelations from Christ.  Questions can be a very good thing to help with critical thinking skills. By testing your theories with pertinent and difficult questions, you can advance your understanding of things that can be puzzling.