Bride Of Christ

[Laurie]

In explaining and clarifying what it means for a consecrated virgin to be the spouse of Christ, it is crucial not to confuse the consecration of a virgin with another type of spousal union in the Church, that of mystical marriage. I’ve drawn on the articles of some theologians below to clarify how the two differ. My points here below address some inaccuracies in Sponsa Christi’s post found here:

 

 http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130717-bride-of-christ%E2%80%94another-perspective/

 

I have put them on this “A Bride of Christ” thread for two reasons: 1) so as not to distract her thread from those who want to pursue her line of reasoning; 2) it continues my earlier discussion in this thread on the nature of a sacramental.

1. Mystical Marriage

“Mystical Union,” Rev. Nicholas Lohkamp, OSF, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2^nd edition.--“In the prayer of transforming union (mystical marriage) there is a complete transformation of the soul into the Beloved. God gives Himself to the soul and the soul gives itself to God in a certain consummation of divine love, so that the soul shares in God's life as fully as is possible in this life. This union is more or less permanent; the soul is more conscious than ever of the Blessed Trinity. The soul is absorbed in seeking the honor of God, eagerly desiring to undertake anything or suffer anything that God may will.”

 

Mystical marriage is a special grace, given to some, as the Good God sees fit. It is NOT restricted to nuns, sisters, and CVs, and women who make private promises. It’s not restricted to women at all! St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross teach that this tremendous grace is not restricted based upon a person’s vocation or state in life. It is clear from mystical theology that mystical marriage (or mystical union) involves an individual’s ardent seeking of God as his or her all in all (of course, this cannot even happen without great graces, but it does REQUIRE cooperation with that grace in order to exist, at all).

 

It is quite possible for a person to love Christ in this complete, all-consuming way AND to be happily installed in the vocation of marriage. The Church DOES NOT teach that in order to love Christ to the highest degree on this earth the person needs to be 1) a woman and/or 2) a person who by this mystical marriage thereby feels herself incapable of a vocation to be married to a mere mortal.

 

1. The union with God in mystical marriage versus the consecration of a virgin as a sacramental.

“Sacramentals,” Rev. John R. Quinn, Rev. Neil J. Roy, 2^nd edition & 2009 supplement.
 

The effect of sacramentals is somewhat different from that of the sacraments. Whereas the sacraments cause the grace signified ex opere operato, that is, the work itself is accomplished validly by the use of due matter and form, the Church’s prayer in the sacramentals works ex opere operantis ecclesiae. This means that in the sacramentals the Church, as the bride and the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, uses the power of Christ’s priesthood to offer an objectively holy prayer that always pleases God. The objective quality of this kind of prayer excels the more subjective nature of those petitions motivated by individual devotion of Church members, even when offered in common.

 

The great value of the sacramentals, then, resides in the power they derive from the Church’s intercession, of which they are signs. In other words, the sacramentals, like the sacraments, have their effect independent of the subjective dispositions of the ministers and recipients. Hence, blessings take effect even when the ministers or recipients are not duly disposed to receive the sanctifying gifts of grace that they communicate….Similar to, but less than the sacraments, the sacramentals nonetheless enjoy an efficacy more powerful than strictly private prayer. As such, they play a distinct role in the economy of SALVATION, rendering holy various situations in life and directing those who use them to a deeper participation in divine worship and in the holiness of God.

 

[Here’s a line from another NCE article, “Ex opere operantis Ecclesiae expresses the efficacy of strictly liturgical prayer, an effectiveness that is due to the action of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.” (“EX OPERE OPERANTIS,” Rev. Philip Hanley, OP, NCE, 2^nd edition)]

 

As a sacramental, the consecration of a virgin, and her spousality enacted by the very Rite itself is NOT dependent upon her ardent desire to be the bride of Christ or her personal feeling that she wants to be the bride of Christ. Sacramentals, like sacraments, can be limited in bearing fruit if the receiver does not dispose herself to cooperate with Divine Grace but this is a far different thing than saying the efficacy of the sacramental itself depends upon personal desire/personal volition/personal feelings.

 

 As a sacramental, the consecration of a virgin to a status of spousal union with Christ in the mystical body of the Church differs substantially from the spousal union of an individual person in mystical marriage. Mystical marriage is highly personal (certainly it is only through the sacraments and graces received through the Church that mystical marriage is possible) because it takes place when God by special favor endows a certain person with mystical graces. This mystical gifting takes place directly between the person and God (except, as noted, that is presupposes a life rooted in the perfections that the Church gives). There is no rite, no public act, no sacrament, and no priestly or episcopal blessing that confers mystical marriage.

 

Conversely, as stated beautifully in the NCE article on sacramentals, the consecration of a virgin espousing her to Christ is objective and effected due to the action of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. It is not effected due to her personal desire/wish/hope to be the bride of Christ. It is certainly perfected, and she grows in holiness, by having the proper interior disposition, on her day of consecration and throughout her life. But it exists objectively, apart from her own inner life, and is bestowed upon her, freely, with no merit or yearning of her own, by the Church.

 

(Please forgive any typos, I am heading out the door and in a hurry. Also, I have used far more bold font & underlining than I usually do because it is crucial that we make clear distinctions on this topic.)

[Laurie]

Code of Canon Law

 

Can. 604 §1 The order of virgins is also to be added to these forms of consecrated life. Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

 

Note that:

 

1) when "the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite," this very consecration/blessing by the Bihsop IS the constitutive sacramental.

 

2) via this constitutive sacramental given by the Bishop in his consecration of the CV, the CV is mystically espoused to Christ. The consecration/espousal takes place (see above, article on "Sacramentals") through the efficacy of Christ's priesthood, enacted through his Church. The CV does not bestow a spousal relationship on herself threw her own personal desires.

[abrideofChrist]

Laurie, I appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to cite relevant articles!  I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

You are saying that the Church constitutes (makes) the virgin into a bride of Christ by the sacramental.  This must mean that she was not ALREADY a bride of Christ by some mystical grace prior to the Church's action, right?  It must mean that she did not possess the nuptial wedded bond with Jesus Christ prior to receiving the consecration, correct?  Thus, even if she is a religious nun with public vows, she is not already a bride of Christ, correct? 

 

You are also saying, if I'm understanding what you've written, that the title and reality of being a Bride of Christ is tied to the sacramental of the Church and not to a previously given grace that can be given to anyone.  Otherwise, the "effect" of the sacramental would not occur.  Why would it "make" someone a bride if the person is already a bride by virtue of some kind of amorphous grace?

 

If my reading of your posts is correct, then you are agreeing with what I've said, rather than disagreeing.  I just want to make sure I am understanding what you wrote.

Edited August 11, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

It appears that a deep undercurrent of those who oppose this thread is the concern that by uncovering differences in consecrations, people can be made to feel inferior.  This has been said in a number of ways.  

For example, one person has copied and pasted things to make it appear as if everyone is equally part of the Bride of Christ and therefore no distinctions can or should be made.  The driving force behind this is the idea that if we say that someone is a bride of Christ by essence of vocation and that someone is NOT a bride of Christ by essence but by participation, somehow we are discriminating against the fundamental equality of the baptized.

Another person has said it is not Christian to say that there objectively superior states in life (339):

I simply cannot believe the tone of this whole thread - nor can I understand why it is even necessary. It seems to be trying to prove a point in order to make one group of people appear superior in some way to other groups of people. Is this even Christian?

 

Although I have stated multiple times that holiness is not dependent on one's state, I do not get the impression that people have read or understood what it was I was saying.  For this reason, I'm going to clarify my meaning with the Church's own teaching so that we can move on in this discussion in peace.

In the first place, the Church has what is known as the hierarchy.  The ordained priesthood is higher than the lay priesthood.  This is a fact, and the word "hierarchy" itself references the fact that the ordained priesthood is indeed higher than the lay priesthood.  What people don't appear to realize is that a devout married man can be more HOLY than a lousy priest.  Let me say this a different way.  The state of the priesthood is higher than the lay state OBJECTIVELY.  Subjectively, people's souls in the different states will be higher or lower according to their love of God.  

Let me also interject that the DIGNITY of each person as a human being, as a member of the Church is EQUAL in the eyes of God.  Their state in life may be, and their personal holiness is UNEQUAL.  

The Consecrated State is Unequal to the Lay State.  This is a matter of Dogma, not a matter of elitism:
 

32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.  (Sacra Virginitas)

 

Even within the Consecrated State, there are unequal forms of life which mirror the Church more or less closely:


 

The nuptial dimension belongs to the whole Church, but consecrated life is a vivid image of it, since it more clearly expresses the impulse towards the Bridegroom.(17)   In a still more significant and radical way, the mystery of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with the Lord is expressed in the vocation of cloistered nuns, precisely because their life is entirely dedicated to God, loved above all else, in a ceaseless straining towards the heavenly Jerusalem and in anticipation of the eschatological Church confirmed in the possession and contemplation of God. (18) Their life is a reminder to all Christian people of the fundamental vocation of everyone to come to God; (19) and it is a foreshadowing of the goal towards which the entire community of the Church journeys, (20) in order to live for ever as the Bride of the Lamb. (Verbi Sponsa)  [My Comment:  You can't have a "still more significant and radical way" unless you are comparing the rest of consecrated life forms to cloistered life.  Also, people reading this should realize that this was written after Sponsa Christi and therefore cloistered nuns did have CVs among their ranks]

 

Let me recap what was just said:

1)  All baptized are EQUAL in dignity as members of the Body of Christ.
2)  All baptized are UNEQUAL in the degree of charity or holiness they possess.  This holiness does not correspond to their state in life.
3)  All states of life are unequal and this is a matter of dogma.
4)  Within the consecrated state there are degrees of conformity to the image of the Church as Bride.


Given the above facts of life, I can conclude the following:

That the title of Bride of Christ can be given to those who share in the Church's identity and charism as Virgin, Bride, and Mother most perfectly and that saying this does not imply inequality of the dignity of the baptized.  It does imply inequality of the state of life, which is fine because the Church herself talks about this in relation to cloistered nuns.  (Should active sisters be offended and start attacking the Church because their way of life doesn't reflect the bridehood of the Church as well as the cloistered nuns?)  It does not imply any degree of holiness on the part of those who are conserated virgins relative to other baptized Catholics.

 

[Laurie]

Yes, AbrideofChrist, you have understood me correctly.

 

Let me add that:

 

1) Certainly a CV could have achieved the sorts of mystical graces that St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross speak of as mystical marriage/union prior to becoming a CV. She could, in theory, have been gifted with this type of mystical union/mystical marriage prior to her consecration as a CV. There is no contradiction here, because they are two different types of marriages (though both are mystical, they come about in completely different ways, and one is vocational, the other is not--the latter cannot be vocational because it spans all vocations). She could have been bestowed by Christ with a mystical marriage/mystical union and later be consecrated as a CV.

 

I have seen zero indication that the Church and her theologians have ever conflated mystical union/marriage with the spousal reality that a consecrated CV embodies (for lack of a better word) in her vocation. The theology of mystical marriage is highly personal; it is very much a union of love between God and THIS soul. A CV's spousal vocation has a very strong personal element, as all vocations do, but it is public, brought about by the Church, and through it the CV BECOMES the bride of Christ in a way that only the Holy Church shares with her (rather, I'd say, in a way that only she fully shares with the Church). Conversely, mystical union/marriage does not presuppose the direct action of the Church.

 

2) I haven't decided yet whether I think the spousal nature of the Church and the spousal nature of the CV are essentially different in every manner from the spousality that all of the baptized share in. This will depend on what I uncover with Aquinas on analogy. I think the priesthood of all believers/ordained priesthood points that you've made are excellent, and have given me much food for thought. On the other hand, I might argue for a "hierarchy" of spousality, in which Holy Church ranks highest because without her spousality, there would be no CVs (analogy in Aquinas can hinge on causal relations, one thing has a quality due to the existence of another thing, that directly causes it).

 

Of course, then the question comes, where does Our Lady come in? Before or after the Church? Together? A CV (based on canon law, the Rite, etc., which has language that the Church does not use for any other vocation) would then be the only vocation that participates FULLY in the spousal reality of the Church, so much so that it constitutes the very ESSENCE of the vocation itself.

 

Above I used the statement "are essentially different in every manner," not to obscure the fact that only the CV vocation IS ESSENTIALLY the bride of Christ, among the vocations, but to keep the door open to using analogy as a real solution to the problem. If the Church herself is the cause of ALL spousality (or, of course, the Trinity, even prior--ha, ha, this is why I said it's going to take me awhile to iron all this out, there are SO many layers!), then there may be no discrepancy in saying only the CV vocation receives fully from the Church a spousal vocation, so much so that she is herself an Image of the Church as Bride, Mother, and Virgin (really, the Church's statements about this vocation are stunning), but that the Church also causes the spousality of the baptized, which religious and other consecrated participate in to a larger degree.

 

It's possible that it is all the same spousality of Holy Mother Church, but only Our Lady and individual CVs fully contain this spousality in their very essence. Others participate to greater or lesser degrees, but not to an essential degree, in this single spousality that is common among all of them.

 

Again, analogy applies when a definition is neither equivocal nor univocal. There is a REAL similarity between two things but there is also a REAL difference. All that said, I reserve the right to rescind these thoughts at any time! Aquinas has several kinds of analogy, he's not systematic in using them, and it takes quite a bit of work to treat his thought thoroughly, read up on all the relevant insights regarding the Church as the Bride of Christ, the CV as the Bride of Christ, the baptized as sharing in the spousal dimension, not to mention the fact that we aren't dealing with easily grasped definitions. Aristotle kicked off analogy with concrete, everyday things that don't take much mental effort to comprehend. Aquinas took it to a whole different level.

 

To emphasize one of your questions, no, the nun at final profession is NOT essentially  a bride of Christ. She probably shares very strongly in that spousal reality (how, and why, and all that jazz is yet one more thing to closely examine--and I have an email out to a theologian right now on how women might share in it more than men). There would be no contradiction in a Carthusian receiving the consecration as a CV because in receiving it she would become essentially the bride of Christ, which she was not prior. (Similar to the fact that a baptized women who receives the consecration--without being a nun first--goes from the spousality of her baptism to a fuller spousality that is essential, in being consecrated.)

 

It's possible that it is all the same spousality, to different degrees, but we shouldn’t take "to different degrees" lightly or read "degrees" like our modern understanding of a thermometer where the difference between point A and point B are exact, incremental points that are identical among themselves. There is a REAL and SIGNIFICANT different between something that IS something in ESSENCE versus a degree of participation. Both the essential element of the CV vocation and the participation of the baptized in the spousality of the Church are due to, and brought about by, the Church herself and the very spousality she has. (Just to highlight, the sacrament of baptism and the constitutive sacramental of the CV consecration are the means by which the Church brings about each.)The Church provides the common definition of that spousality but it is not found the same way in various things (one essentially, the other not).

 

(I would argue that the mystical union/marriage of which the theologians speak is not analogous to the spousal reality I have outlined above. There are just too many differences. For one, while it comes about in a soul that is a faithful and grace-filled member of Holy Church, that type of union is not directly caused by the Church. It is a direct action of God to a given soul—while understanding that the soul can only be disposed to receive this grace if the person is in a state of grace, which only comes about from the Church).

 

Each week I hope to work more on this, but time flies, and I just haven't found the time.

 

Lastly, of course the CV vocation is beautiful and stunning because it embodies the reality towards which every person who will end up in Beatitude is journeying.

 

The CV vocation (and I’m sure ABC, we agree on this) doesn't indicate that God loves the CV more than anyone else. The CV vocation is a living, breathing indication of just how much God loves each one of us.

[Laurie]

To give a loose illustration (and this is weak, I'm just using it to help clarify). The pan on the fire IS hot. It actually has the quality of heat in itself. That said, a hot pan is not the sun. The sun doesn't have "a quality of heat." It IS heat! But the two heats ARE the same. They are also different. (I'm no scientist, so perhaps that doesn't fly.)

[Laurie]

I've hesitated to post my thought above before because my answers to most people's questions will probably be: Don't know! Not sure! Still thinking about it!

 

That and the fact that I don't have time to keep up with all posts in a timely manner, and I didn't want to start a post and not follow up on it. But I may have to do just that. We'll see.

[Laurie]

Actually, it would have been better to use the illustration of a pan that it hot and the actual fire it is sitting on top of. The pan IS HOT. It has the quality of "hot" within itself. It's heat is caused by the fire. But the pan is not essentially hot in the way the fire is, essentially, hot. If fire wasn't hot, it wouldn't be fire. At all.

[abrideofChrist]

Hi Laurie,

 

I am very interested in your continuing your line of thought.  For one thing, you have pointed out some of the flaws in the alternative theory proposed by Sponsa Christi.  Simultaneously, you have deepened this conversation about what it means to be a bride of Christ as a consecrated virgin.

 

What is disturbing to me, is the fact that no one seems to realize how powerful your argument is in terms of a constitutive sacramental nor do they apparently understand the frightening implications of Sponsa Christi's dismissive attitude towards the canonical states of consecrated life.  According to Sponsa Christi's own words, there is no intrinsic connection between what the Church does or says and God's grace of brideship to people.  Further, since this can be given to anyone (or at least to females in her view), this means that anyone who wants to be a nun can be a nun without the religious consecration and vows.  This means that I am a nun because I feel that God has given me that grace.  I can receive spiritual Communion and call it actual Holy Communion because the real deal isn't necessary- after all God gives the grace unconnected with the Sacraments!  This also means that Sponsa Christi wasted her bishop's time because she was already a bride of Christ long before she walked up the aisle and she did not receive a solemn consecration making her into a bride of the Lord at the bishop's hands because she was already one. 

 

You know, canon law is not as arbitrary as she appears to think it is.  The reason why canon law goes at great length to discuss the different states in life and the different forms of consecrated life is because there are actually differences between the forms of consecrated life and between the lay state and the consecrated state.  If it was purely an invention of the Church with no relation to any kind of ontological reality then a massive amount of time was wasted by the Church in all of its documents pertaining to consecrated life.  Unfortunately for her position, the Church clearly teaches that the consecration comes from God and is separate and not identical to the graces given to all of the baptized.  The Church also clearly teaches that these graces of consecration come THROUGH the ministry of the Church and ONLY through the ministry of the Church.  So her position is untenable.  But, some people are so in love with the idea that all of us can be equally the brides of Christ in the same way that they they fail to critically examine the premises on which their position rests. 

 

Does this reading of the far reaching implications of what I am taking to be your position accurately reflect your position?

[Ima Lurker]

Thank you Laurie and God's Beloved for citations. I am appreciating reading things that are backed up by authoritative documents and experts rather than people who state their ideas based on feelings. 

 

Emotions are great but I prefer them when watching Hollywood movies, not when trying to understand our Catholic faith. 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2013 by Ima Lurker

[Laurie]

Ima Lurker, I'm glad you found the recent posts helpful!

 

ABC, likewise, I'm glad you found my recent thoughts helpful. I think slowly many of us here are trying to row together towards some really solid clarifications. I'm happy to contribute to your gargantuan effort, as I can!

 

As for Sponsa-Christi's recent position, yes, I find her position incomprehensible and untenable. Canon 604 (which is as good as it gets when you want to reference Church teaching and how the Magisterium, in all her splendid authority, views this vocation) is not difficult to understand.

 

The CV is espoused to Christ, by a constitutive sacramental, enacted by the Diocesan Bishop in the Rite promulgated for this specific purpose. I don't see how a dialogue can be sustained if the objective teaching of the Church regarding this vocation is not recognized.

 

Obviously, all vocations involve a direct and personal calling from God but to think that supplies for, or can stand in the place of, the direct mediation of the Church in the various vocations (most of which are sacraments or sacramentals--the profession of religous is a sacramental, too!) is bizarre.

[Ima Lurker]

For those of you, like me, who have tried to keep an open mind, I copy and paste from the usacv (thanks again barbara therese for providing so many links)

 

1.4 THE CONSECRATED VIRGIN

, “SPOUSE OF CHRIST”

Until now our discourse about the “Church Spouse of Christ” has only dealt with her complex

reality as the mystical body of Christ. But now is the time to speak about the “consecrated virgin

as spouse of Christ.” But our treatment of this subject will be short because, as the Fathers of the

Church remark, what is said of the “Church Spouse” must be also said of each consecrated

virgin. She is “Spouse of Christ” not on the basis of a subjective choice, but because through her

personal choice and the intervention of the Spirit by means of the official consecration, she participates more intimately in the wedded life of

the Church. Through her baptism the virgin is already part of the mystery of the “Church Spouse of Christ,” but now, with her consecration — which implies totality, perpetuity, and action of the spirit — she becomes even more profoundly

a part of that great mystery, a partaker, and at the same time, an eminently visible sign of it

 

Continuing Church tradition, the Roman Ritual of 1970 “in a prominent way, without hesitation

or concessions to emotionalism; reaffirms the unanimous doctrine of the Popes and the

continuous interpretation of the liturgy by stating that the specific element of the

consecration ofa virgin is the particular nuptial relationship that is established be

tween Christ and the Virgin.”9

Texts are explicit. In the ritual homily in aparagraph inspired by the doctrine of the Holy

Trinity, the bishop tells the virgins: The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, through baptism has already made you temples of God’s

glory and children of the Father. Today through our ministry he anoints you with a new

grace and consecrates you to God by a new title. He gives each one of you the dignity of

being a bride of Christ and binds you to the Son of God in a covenant to last forever.10

 

The consecrated virgin is the “spouse of Christ” not in opposition to the other members of the

Church, but in a deeper sense. She is already the “spouse of Christ” by baptism, but now she

goes a step further as she voluntarily renounces earthly nuptials.

Thus the gift of the Spiritenables her to deepen her resolution to live a life

exclusively dedicated tothe love of Christ and to the service of the Kingdom. In this way

she becomes the “visible sign” of the wedded condition of the Church.

 

Taken from pp 331- 332 of the information packet provided by the usacv. Sorry for not knowing how to link to it. But those that are reading should find it easily enough. :)

[Ima Lurker]

 

My information was gleaned long ago from the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins (USACV). The information is simple and straightforward - and quite beautiful - with no theological gymnastics.

Sr Lauren can publish on the dedicated life to distinguish from the consecrated life if she wishes and needs such a distinguishing.  It is not what JPII has to say about the lay celibate chaste vocation in Vita Consecrata ("The Consecrated Life"). I have already quoted what JPII had to say.  Although, in speaking with people and in various posts and other places it has been very handy to point out that I am not in consecrated life in Church legal language, rather I am living a dedicated life and a difference in language primarily only since the way of life I live has some features of other vocations for women.  And I don't need a great lecture about formal consecration in The Church.   The Church consecrates as a movement of Grace, as I live the life I live in response to a movement of Grace and I have done so for 30 years.

I am happy, at Peace and in Joy, in my vocation and fruits of The Holy Spirit - including the fact that the cross is intrinsic.

 

http://consecratedvirgins.org/vocation

• Q&A
• About the USACV
• About our Vocation
• Vocational Resources
• Products

• Central Elements
• What is a consecrated virgin?
• Bishop and the diocese
• Brief reference for discernment
• Canon Law
• The Catechism of the Catholic Church
• Vita Consecrata
• Vocation Tree
• History of the Order of Virgins
• Spiritual Writings
• Numbers of Consecrated Virgins
• Links to other Order of Consecrated Virgins websites
• Interview with Archbishop Burke
• Address of Pope Benedict XVI, May 2008
• Vocation Information
• Who We Are

 

 

Browsing these links, I have found the following:

 

 

WHAT IS THE CONSECRATION OF VIRGINS?

[reprinted with permission From the Archives of St. Benedict’s Convent,

St. Joseph, Minnesota -- no author given]

The word “consecrate” in the English language

has many meanings, but its most proper meaning is the technical and

theological one employed by the Catholic Church to designate a person,

place, or thing dedicated to God forever by special rites and ceremonies performed by a person

who has the power and jurisdiction to consecrate. The power to consecrate (outside the

Consecration at Mass) is proper only to bishops, who have the fullness of the priestly office and

who enjoy ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For some consecrations

minor prelates and priests may be

delegated, but the jurisdiction belongs to the Holy Father and the bishops. . . . When Tertullian,

St. Ambrose, and others wrote of

virgins consecrated to God, they meant those who had formally

been consecrated by the bishop and there was no ambiguity in what they wrote,

for the Rite itself was often described in detail.

Effect of Consecration It is a Rite which, of itself gives the consecrated

virgin the character of a sacred person. The ceremony of Consecration is one of the Church’s

greatest and most beautiful and at the same time most significant sacramental rites, comparab

le to the consecration of a sovereign or the blessing of an abbot or an abbess. Because of

its great solemnity, because of the great care withwhich the administration of this

great sacramental has been surrounded, there have even been those who mistakenly thought it was a sacrament.

It imprints no new character upon the soul; but we may be pardoned, I am sure, for saying that

it comes nearer to doing so than any of the other sacramentals, and the ceremony itself is proof of

the fact that, while it is not a sacrament, it comes nearest of all the sacramentals, with no

exception, to partaking of the nature of a sacrament, for in it is exemplified the mystical

marriage of the virgin with Christ who is her Spouse.

The state of consecrated virginityis the highest state which a Christian woman can attain. She

cooperates with God in the supernatural order. She has answered the call of the heavenly

Bridegroom to be His spouse in preference to becoming the spouseof an earthly husband to

whom she would be bound in many things. The consecrated virgins have attained the freedom of

being bound by no earthly ties. Her bonds are those of supernatural

charity which bind her to God alone. Yet her charity is great enough to

embrace all men and strong enough to bring with

her to God many souls of whom she becomes the spiritual mother.

 

p9 of the welcome packet from the usacv.
 

[BarbTherese]

The difference between an act of The Church and an act of God not formally recongized by The Church is that in an act of The Church such as public consecration of a virgin, The Holy Spirit is indeed the action performed by The Church.  In an action not formally publically recognized by The Church, The Holy Spirit remains and is of course free to act as He Will and He does.

I think that I have said what I mean while in these type of threads language becomes scary!

[BarbTherese]

The difference between an act of The Church and an act of God not formally recongized by The Church is that in an act of The Church such as public consecration of a virgin, The Holy Spirit is indeed the action performed by The Church.  In an action not formally publically recognized by The Church, The Holy Spirit remains and is of course free to act as He Will and He does.

I think that I have said what I mean while in these type of threads language becomes scary!  Something akin to being asked to address the class on last night's homework when one has no idea at all what it was.  Scary!

Edited August 12, 2013 by BarbaraTherese