Bride Of Christ

[BarbTherese]

Blessings, Liturgical (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2^nd edition)

[L. J. JOHNSON & J. R. QUINN]

 

“Types of Blessings. Among the Church’s sanctifying actions some constitute a person or object to service in the Church. These are known as constitutive blessings and result in a permanent deputation to worship. Some constitutive blessings are more solemn than others, indicated by the use of the holy oils in their celebration; these are called consecrations in contra-distinction to simple constitutive blessings. The consecration of an altar, a church, or a chalice are examples of this same type of blessings for objects.

 

In addition to these there are many blessings that call on God to bless the persons who make use of objects or who are in certain needs. In these the person or object is not permanently changed. They are known as invocative blessings. The prayers seeking God's protection for a home or a sick person are of this class. Since the blessings she imparts consist primarily in her impetration, these (blessings) are what one means first of all in speaking of her sacramentals. The term is used in a secondary sense of the objects to which she gives her blessing.”

 

Note that invocative blessings are distinguished from constitutive blessings (the consecration of a virgin is a constitutive blessing) because invocative blessings do not bring about a permanent change in the person or object. It logically follows that constitutive blessings do bring about a permanent change in the person.

 

Constitutive brings about a change in what the person is deputised for ("permanent deputation to worship") It is a "deputation for" or "assigned to"; however, only Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders bring about an ontological change or change in the very essence of the person per se.

 

 

Constitutive : "A constitutive blessing, invoked by a bishop, priest or deacon, signifies the permanent sanctification and dedication of a person or thing for some sacred purpose. Here the person or object takes on a sacred character and would not be returned to non-sacred or profane use. For example, when religious Sisters or Brothers profess final vows, they are blessed, indicating a permanent change in their lives. Or, when a chalice is blessed, it becomes a sacred vessel dedicated solely to sacred usage.

 

 

 

 

 

Ontolotical Change

http://stpaulsparish.org/education/documents/ontological_change.pdf 

 

"– the Sacraments which produce an ontological change in a person: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders

 

– the Sacraments which provide grace for the support, strengthening, and development of the new life

and being created by this ontological change: Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Unction of the Sick,

Matrimony

 

Ontology is the “study and analysis of what something is.” This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s “existential analysis” to include the study of human existence. Thus an “ontologicalchange” is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence.

 

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, when validly administered, produce an objective, permanent, systemic change in what a person is and the nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

 

 

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person.

nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person. It is also what theologically is at the center of the question of who can validly be the subject (recipient) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

 

It is because the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, and Unction of the Sick support, strengthen, and develop the new life created by this ontological change that this objective, systemic change in ones beingand existence must have taken place (through the Sacrament of Baptism) in order for any of these four Sacraments to be effective in the recipient’s life. (My note: As Baptism and Confirmation i.e. ontological change must have taken place before the Consecration of a Virgin, for example, can take place validly)

 

 

Edited August 15, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

MARIALIS -CULTUS

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus_en.html

 

This Apostolic Exhortation speaks much of the theology of Consecrated virginity in relation to Mary and the Church.

 

With real respect - it would be very helpful to have some quotes fro Marialis-Cultus that you feel speak to your point.

[BarbTherese]

Maybe I can help you with this one? 

 

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610153 in response to your question earlier about the changes of a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610167 direct q&a regarding ontological change in a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610171 useful quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church helping us to understand the change better.

 

ABC also answered your question on ontological change in post 103: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610177

 

 

I've been re reading the posts as a refresher. I can't believe how much I've learned just from reading this thread! :D I hope this helps you, MLF, and that I'm not just wasting your time repeating so much here. I think it was your questions and several others who really got some to delve deep into the books for the answers and I'm really grateful for that! Truly my gain... ;)

 

Peace and prayers! 

 

Only Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders confer ontological change.  This is why a CV cannot be consecrated validly unless Baptism and Confirmation and ontological change has taken place.  Ontological change is change in the actual person per se in reality.  What constitutes the person in ontological change actually undergoes very real change.  Consecration of a CV or any other form of consecrated life is The Church under the Inspiration of The Holy Spirit consecrating the baptised and confirmed person (ontologically changed) for some special purpose in The Church (sacramental).

Edited August 15, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

I omitted to give the link for the definition of "constitutive" in The Church : Fr William P Saunders (EWTN) http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHATBLES.HTM

[Laurie]

Thank you, BarbaraTherese. I know there is a lot going on in this thread!

 

Ima Lurker linked just above to one of my earlier posts on ontological change. I get into the sacrament versus sacramental and give some quotes from theologians in which the change brought about by some sacramentals is consistent with the ontological change brought about by the sacraments.

 

I've said repeatedly that sacramentals are not the same as sacramentals. I also quoted at length a few pages ago with some excellent NCE articles about the similarities and differences between the two.

 

It's a mistake to think "ontological change" can only happen in one, very restricted way. I think it's clear that a sacramental does not have the power & efficacy of a sacrament. It's also clear it does have power & efficacy and permanent efficacy at that!

 

There's no contradiction in reserving the strong sense of "ontological change" for the sacraments while saying, given the language theologians have used to describe constitute sacramentals, that they, too, bring about a real change. This is all based on philosophy and language (the topics we just can't seem to get away from! :)).

 

For example, these are all examples of ontological change, on various levels:

 

--pan on counter is room temperature; pan if filled with cold water; pan is put on burner and brought to a boil--within 20 minutes that pan underwent a real ontological change--from warm, to cold, to hot

 

--chipmunk scurries along, chipmunk gets hit by a bus :( Ontological. Change. (The animal soul of that chipmunk has departed as the life principle and only a corpse is left. Major ontological change. Poor chipmunk carcass decays and returns to the earth. Another ontological change.)

 

--And there are other kinds than just these two. But as you can see, there's quite a bit of difference between the first and second. The first is transitory, the second so dramatic that the thing that was there ceased to be due to the change.

 

There can be less radical ontological changes that are nonetheless permanent and effect a REAL change and others that are more radical and likewise effect a permanent and real change. The fact that the more radical one is real doesn't negate the other from being real, too.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Laurie

[Laurie]

 

Ontolotical Change

http://stpaulsparish...ical_change.pdf 

 

"– the Sacraments which produce an ontological change in a person: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders

 

– the Sacraments which provide grace for the support, strengthening, and development of the new life

and being created by this ontological change: Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Unction of the Sick,

Matrimony

 

Ontology is the “study and analysis of what something is.” This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s “existential analysis” to include the study of human existence. Thus an “ontologicalchange” is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence.

 

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, when validly administered, produce an objective, permanent, systemic change in what a person is and the nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

 

 

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person.

nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person. It is also what theologically is at the center of the question of who can validly be the subject (recipient) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

 

It is because the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, and Unction of the Sick support, strengthen, and develop the new life created by this ontological change that this objective, systemic change in ones beingand existence must have taken place (through the Sacrament of Baptism) in order for any of these four Sacraments to be effective in the recipient’s life. (My note: As Baptism and Confirmation i.e. ontological change must have taken place before the Consecration of a Virgin, for example, can take place validly)

 

BarbaraTherese, I think this was originally from you (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I'll start from the bottom, your comment in red first: Yes! Absolutely. The constitutive blessing of a CV is only possible due to Baptism and Confirmation.

 

Second, we don't disagree on the nature of the sacraments.

 

3rd, I didn't see an author listed on the link you gave for the Q&A on ontological change from St. Paul Parish. Here's your quote from above:

 

"Ontology is the study and analysis of what something is.' This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s 'existential analysis' to include the study of human existence. Thus an 'ontological change' is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence."

 

This is way off. It's true that "ontology" is the study of being. But Heidegger did NOT "expand it to include human existence!" That happened with Aristotle, if not to varying degrees before him!!!!!! You know the chipmunk example I gave above? Animal soul as the life principle of a chipmunk body? Aristole. Animal soul leaving the poor little chipmunk body? Death. Substantial (metaphysical) change. Aristotle.

 

The Church DOES NOT rely on Martin Heidegger for her explanations of things. She did NOT discover "ontological change" due to him!

 

Heidegger basically bucked most of the philosophy that the Church and her theologians and philosophers developed and relied upon. That doesn't mean he doesn't have anything interesting to say.

 

But there were 2,400 plus years of philosophers and then Christian philosophers and theologians talking about metaphysical (ontological) change before Martin was even a twinkle in his father's eye. I'm just saying.

 

 

[abrideofChrist]

Laurie is right.  The deepest sense of ontological change, as I pointed out in a very early post in this thread, is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which occurs when a substance becomes another substance.  Or, in this case, when bread becomes the Body of Christ.  Sacraments with a "seal" are another example of ontological change.  But there ARE other ontological changes besides those caused by change in essence and a "seal".  One such change is that of the Consecration of Virgins.  Again, as she points out, this is why knowing philosophy can be helpful because a philosopher would know about the different types of ontological changes possible.  In the case of a consecration, we are talking about an non-existent bond between the virgin and Christ prior to the Consecration and then a bond forming through the ministry of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit.  There is a big difference between nothing and something- an infinite one, I might add.  You can compare this to the nuptial bond between a man and a woman. At first they are ontologically single with no bond between them and then through words and signs a bond is created between them that makes them husband and wife.  Again, infinite difference between a single person and a married person.  If we were to say that ontologically they were the same before and after the wedding vows, we'd be wrong.  If we were to say that God had somehow graced them with the spousal grace before the wedding and that the vows were merely a confirmation of a reality already present we'd be wrong.

[Laurie]

Laurie is right.  The deepest sense of ontological change, as I pointed out in a very early post in this thread, is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which occurs when a substance becomes another substance.  Or, in this case, when bread becomes the Body of Christ.  Sacraments with a "seal" are another example of ontological change.  But there ARE other ontological changes besides those caused by change in essence and a "seal".  One such change is that of the Consecration of Virgins.  Again, as she points out, this is why knowing philosophy can be helpful because a philosopher would know about the different types of ontological changes possible.  In the case of a consecration, we are talking about an non-existent bond between the virgin and Christ prior to the Consecration and then a bond forming through the ministry of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit.  There is a big difference between nothing and something- an infinite one, I might add.  You can compare this to the nuptial bond between a man and a woman. At first they are ontologically single with no bond between them and then through words and signs a bond is created between them that makes them husband and wife.  Again, infinite difference between a single person and a married person.  If we were to say that ontologically they were the same before and after the wedding vows, we'd be wrong.  If we were to say that God had somehow graced them with the spousal grace before the wedding and that the vows were merely a confirmation of a reality already present we'd be wrong.

 

Yup. Spot on.

 

You know, it's just occurred to me, I think some here might be mistaking the ESSENTIAL NATURE of the CV VOCATION with the ESSENTIAL NATURE of the woman who is consecrated.

 

The human soul is the essential nature of the woman who is consecrated.

 

To be the bride of Christ is the essential nature of the CV vocation. This is drawn from the essential elements of the vocation in Canon 604 (a CV is mystically betrothed to Christ via the constitutive blessing given by the bishop).

 

If anyone here thinks we are arguing that the constitutive blessing takes "a woman who has a human soul as her essence" and changes her human soul entirely into some new essence that consists of "human soul plus essentially bride of Christ" well, that would be incorrect.

 

That's not what we've been saying.

 

The VOCATION to the be a CV is ESSENTIALLY SPOUSAL.

 

The woman has her essence: human soul.

 

The vocation has it's own essence: to be the bride of Christ.

 

When a woman receives this vocation, her essence, her human soul, is altered. She receives a permanent blessing and a permanent union with Christ as her mystical spouse. It is a change to her human soul. But it is NOT swapping out her human soul for "something else."

 

 

 

[abrideofChrist]

Just to tease things out a little bit more.  Marriage is in itself a reflection of Christ's union with the Church.  HOWEVER, marriage need not be sacramental to do this.

 

A true and valid marriage bond can form between people without the sacrament.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but they are not united by a sacramental bond.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid sacramental valid marriage bond can form between some people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond can be dissolved.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid and indissoluble valid marriage bond can form between people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond cannot be dissolved once a change happens by means of their bodies.  Their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

I suggest that you reflect on this reality and try to understand that in each of these cases, you have people who are NOT single.  What makes their bond different?  Why?  How?  And note that there is a discrete beginning to each type of bond.  It was not a continuous existence that was merely ratified, confirmed, or blessed by the Church.

Edited August 15, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, I think this was originally from you (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I'll start from the bottom, your comment in red first: Yes! Absolutely. The constitutive blessing of a CV is only possible due to Baptism and Confirmation.

 

Second, we don't disagree on the nature of the sacraments.

 

3rd, I didn't see an author listed on the link you gave for the Q&A on ontological change from St. Paul Parish. Here's your quote from above:

 

"Ontology is the study and analysis of what something is.' This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s 'existential analysis' to include the study of human existence. Thus an 'ontological change' is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence."

 

This is way off. It's true that "ontology" is the study of being. But Heidegger did NOT "expand it to include human existence!" That happened with Aristotle, if not to varying degrees before him!!!!!! You know the chipmunk example I gave above? Animal soul as the life principle of a chipmunk body? Aristole. Animal soul leaving the poor little chipmunk body? Death. Substantial (metaphysical) change. Aristotle.

 

The Church DOES NOT rely on Martin Heidegger for her explanations of things. She did NOT discover "ontological change" due to him!

 

Heidegger basically bucked most of the philosophy that the Church and her theologians and philosophers developed and relied upon. That doesn't mean he doesn't have anything interesting to say.

 

But there were 2,400 plus years of philosophers and then Christian philosophers and theologians talking about metaphysical (ontological) change before Martin was even a twinkle in his father's eye. I'm just saying.

 

Thank you, Laurie.  Beyond me most of the above and with very real respect, and I am disinterested as a study at this point. But thank you for very much for sharing -   :)  I'm disinterested only because I have no training in these complex subjects while could I afford it I would be studying philosophy and some branch of theology.  Be that as it may, as a faithful and active very ordinary (face-in-the-pew) type Catholic by call and vocation, I do have a right to understand The Church and in language that I can understand.  If this were a forum confined to philosophy and theology and only philosophers and theologians can contribute, then it would be a different matter - to me.

 

In the examples you gave in a previous post.  Cold and Boiling water remain water.  The monkey remains a monkey deprived of one of its elements i.e. life i.  These are not ontological changes to me as I understand the term.  Their elements have changed, but not the essence of what is actually there.  It is still a monkey (though dead) and it is still water (though on the boil). 

 

That The Church states that ontological change takes place at Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders alone is good enough for my level of knowledge.  The very word "consecrated" as in "Consecrated Life" (includes CV's) is a constitutive blessing or assignment (deputation)  of the person as a sacramental or set aside for sacred use.  What that sacred use is to me is contained in the duties of the particular consecrated person and into which consecrated form they are consecrated.  Consecrated life is a state in life created by The Church under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.  The Sacraments come to us direct from God instituted by Him directly.

 

1 - I have skimmed this article which was very interesting in places where I settled and read with concentration:Character in Theology:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03586a.htm

 

2 - This article was also interesting and I read it the same way as 1. above. Sacramentals: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm

 

 

I don't have an agenda wanting my point of view to stand and against all others come what may.  Rather if I come across a convincing argument that my search for the Truth of the matter is not on track, then I am more than willing, eager in fact, to change my opinion and over the course of this thread rather than change my mind, insight has deepened, I feel.  I remain open minded on the matter insofar as sound resources are quoted/indicated, not personal concepts.

Edited August 15, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Laurie]

BarbaraTherese, I do understand your points and respect your wish to understand things as you can.

 

Still, I must point out, that these kinds of theological and philosophical explanations are not a hindrance to understanding the vocation. They are NECESSARY. The Church, herself, has embraced, for example, Aristole and Aquinas, for a reason.That's because they had amazing minds that got to the truth of things, in a multitude of ways.

 

The kinds of defintions and distinctions that ABC and I and others are offering are NOT a distraction to the discussion at hand. If a certain person isn't interested in them, or doesn't find them helpful, that's fine. It's not everyone's domain.

 

But there MUST be people in the Church tackling these issues, each and every day.

 

To take a concrete, relevant example.

 

A human person has a human soul. The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God. The human person has an intellect (to know the truth) and free will (to choose the truth, intellectually, and morally, what we call that which is "good.")

 

No single human person exists as "just a soul." A human person is always body/soul together.

 

In this day and age, some people will say, well, a child who is severely mentally handicapped is not a person! This girl can't think! She can't do math! She can't tie her shoes!

 

But the Catholic Church, to that, says HELL NO.

 

She's got an intellect! Her very human soul endows her with a mind that can know God and a free will that can seek Him. Right now, on earth, there might be something the matter with her physical brain (the organ of her brain) that impedes the full action of her soul. But there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER WRONG WITH HER SOUL. When that child gets to Heaven her mind will not be encumbered by a faulty brain organ, and she will KNOW the truth, and she will love Him (Them ;)).

 

THAT's what the Pro-Life movement hinges on. THAT's why these discussions make a difference. THAT comes straight from Aristole and Aquinas and others.

 

Not everyone in the pew is going to be able to explain or teach these things. They don't have to be able to do so.

 

But everyone in the Church does have to support, pray for, and encourage those who are tasked with teaching/thinking/elucidating.

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, I do understand your points and respect your wish to understand things as you can.

 

Still, I must point out, that these kinds of theological and philosophical explanations are not a hindrance to understanding the vocation. They are NECESSARY. The Church, herself, has embraced, for example, Aristole and Aquinas, for a reason.That's because they had amazing minds that got to the truth of things, in a multitude of ways.

 

The kinds of defintions and distinctions that ABC and I and others are offering are NOT a distraction to the discussion at hand. If a certain person isn't interested in them, or doesn't find them helpful, that's fine. It's not everyone's domain.

 

But there MUST be people in the Church tackling these issues, each and every day.

 

To take a concrete, relevant example.

 

A human person has a human soul. The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God. The human person has an intellect (to know the truth) and free will (to choose the truth, intellectually, and morally, what we call that which is "good.")

 

No single human person exists as "just a soul." A human person is always body/soul together.

 

In this day and age, some people will say, well, a child who is severely mentally handicapped is not a person! This girl can't think! She can't do math! She can't tie her shoes!

 

But the Catholic Church, to that, says HELL NO.

 

She's got an intellect! Her very human soul endows her with a mind that can know God and a free will that can seek Him. Right now, on earth, there might be something the matter with her physical brain (the organ of her brain) that impedes the full action of her soul. But there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER WRONG WITH HER SOUL. When that child gets to Heaven her mind will not be encumbered by a faulty brain organ, and she will KNOW the truth, and she will love Him (Them ;)).

 

THAT's what the Pro-Life movement hinges on. THAT's why these discussions make a difference. THAT comes straight from Aristole and Aquinas and others.

 

Not everyone in the pew is going to be able to explain or teach these things. They don't have to be able to do so.

 

But everyone in the Church does have to support, pray for, and encourage those who are tasked with teaching/thinking/elucidating.

 

Thank you, Laurie.  Most of what you said above, I have stated before in different wording.  My problem is that if a person asks me "Why do nuns (or CV's) in the Catholic Church call themselves brides of Christ?" (and it is a VERY, VERY, frequently occurring question).  I need to have an answer at hand.  And I do and I feel it is the right answer and makes logical sense to me.  Problem is that that answer is challenged in this thread and by a few.  What I am seeking to discern is if I have the correct answer to give, or whether I have to change that answer.  And it really does matter - a lot.  It is a confusing point to people outside of The Church, and as we see in this thread not only outside The Church.

 

To date, I feel that I am correct.  But I do follow this thread with considerable interest wondering if there is something that I need to change about my answer with sound and reliable sources quoted to support such a change.  Not philosophical and theological type terms that are not followed by an explanation of what that term might mean.  Ontology for example is a contested term it seems to me from odd and relatively brief searches through Google. 

 

To me "ontological change" means that something is no longer what it appears to be and such ontological change can only take place in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.  The very fact that one cannot receive consecration into the consecrated state without Baptism and Confirmation tells me that ontological change only takes place with these three Sacraments.  Change does take place (as with all Graces) with consecration; however it is not a complete ontological change in that what appears to be is no longer present.  What appears to be remains, however with consecration that person is 'deputised' or constituted to give special service - sacramental service.

 

The consecrated person is changed into a Sacramental to give witness, image or reflect some particular aspect of Jesus and His Church.  In the case of the CV this is largely an eschatological witness.  This is constitutive (or deputised for example) i.e. "consecrated" for special service in The Church.  There is no ontological change which to my mind is complete change in the being of himself or herself (i.e. consecrated person).  But then "ontological" is a contested term hence all interpretations using "ontological" as a term must also thus be contested, including mine.  Therefore, I revert to what The Church states in Her Public Teaching Office - that ontological change only takes place in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.  And this supports my own understanding to date.

Edited August 15, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[abrideofChrist]

 

 

In the examples you gave in a previous post.  Cold and Boiling water remain water.  The monkey remains a monkey deprived of one of its elements i.e. life i.  These are not ontological changes to me as I understand the term.  Their elements have changed, but not the essence of what is actually there.  It is still a monkey (though dead) and it is still water (though on the boil). 

 

That The Church states that ontological change takes place at Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders alone is good enough for my level of knowledge. 

BarbaraTherese, quite simply it is not true that the dead monkey is a monkey or a dead chipmunk is a chipmunk.  TO BE a chipmunk (that is the essence of "chipmunk") requires life (body + soul) and in the case of a dead chipmunk you only have (body).  This is exactly why philosophy is important.  The essence of dead chipmunk is different than the essence of chipmunk.  Period.

 

It is heresy to think that ontological change is done only by the three sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and holy orders.  I have repeatedly brought your attention to another sacrament that effects ontological change:  the Eucharist.  We say that an ontological change in its strictest sense occurs when the essence of bread is changed to be the essence of the Body of Christ.  This is a pretty big deal.  Protestants believe a number of other explanations like the essence of bread REMAINS and Christ is squeezed into the bread and is present WITH the bread or that the bread merely becomes a better "sign" of the Body of Christ but NOT actually the Body of Christ.

 

The Church often does give simplified explanations of theological and philosophical realities for people who do not think they have the capacity of understanding advanced theological and philosophical principles.  But at some point, to really understand something means that one does really get the difference.  At some point, we have to realize that John and Jane are either married and have a spousal bond or that they are single.  At some point we have to realize that a body is different than a body plus soul.  At some point we have to realize that something that IS by nature, others can be through participation.

 

I do not know if you are aware of this, but before seminarians study theology, they study philosophy.  They must have at least two solid years of philosophy before they are allowed to go on to theology.  Most of them moan about this because they don't see the relevance of philosophy to their being a priest.  Only when they start to study theology do they begin to get the importance of philosophy.  Studying theology without first studying philosophy is like reading without learning the alphabet.  I have noticed that you quote from all kinds of theological documents, but at the same time you proclaim the fact that you have not and do not intend to study philosophy.  Unless you study philosophy, you will not really understand much of the theological works you cite because they presuppose knowledge of philosophy.  I am not saying this to be unkind, but because I would like to encourage you to begin studying philosophy so you can start to understand the underpinnings of the theological documents you are citing.  A whole new vista will be open to you if you are able to do this. 

 

In my country, there is a huge battle about so called gay marriage.  The problem is that everyone is focused on the word "love", and assign an erroneous definition to that word.  Even on this thread, some people were focusing on "charity" and thinking that this is the last word when it comes to defining vocations (by saying all that matters is charity, then by definition all vocations are the same and we should not explore what makes them essentially different). 

 

When people did have a better philosophical background in earlier centuries, they actually got the fact that marriage is not just about love.  They were able to reason to monogamy, to the fact that the physical bodies have sexual differences and that these differences suggest a purpose for them, they were able to reason to a reality called marriage. 

 

People today claim that the state has the authority to dissolve the marriage bond.  How does a person argue against this on purely natural terms unless by showing that it is not simply a contract?  If it's not just a contract, then it has to have something besides a legal existence.  If it has an existence rooted in ontological being, then we need to argue that marriage is SOMETHING that is not dependent on the state's recognition or lack thereof.  But if we argue that, then we need to say how this Something comes into being and how it disappears, and what it IS.

 

I know that this is philosophical and too hard to follow for some people, but it is a fact of life.  Only when we have an understanding of this, can we begin to understand why homosexual unions cannot have the essence of marriage.  The essence of marriage is not undifferentiated love.  If love itself creates marriage, then all of us would be married and we would only not be married to those we hate.  Therefore, love is not the essence of marriage.  So what is?  Well, we need to look at a lot of factors to begin constructing a definition of marriage.  It should be understood that we are not talking about constructing an arbitrary definition of marriage but one that is rooted in REALITY.  One that actually captures the essence of marriage as opposed to a purely nominal construct.

 

Part of the construction of the definition of marriage will have to do with procreation.  Philosophy helps here, especially when we note what the philosophers (and THE Philosopher) have to say about things created for an end; that natural things are ordered to ends.  I believe that an ear and hearing are classic examples.  The De Anima is a classic work that discusses this principle, and the principle of life.  If we begin to discuss ends, then we need to know to what purpose or end different sex organs serve in the human body.  However, there are different ends, and this is why studying philosophy can be extremely useful in coming to an understanding of the definition of marriage.  The Philosopher ties the concept of ends with the soul and other realities.  Again, this is a concept which a philosopher would appreciate and the non philosopher would be very puzzled by. 

 

Ultimately, we by the use of natural reason, can come to a natural definition of marriage.  It is a union between a man and a woman, having as essential elements unity, permanence, and the use of procreative power.  If it doesn't have unity (monogamy), it is not marriage.  If it doesn't have permanence, it is not marriage.  If it isn't between a man and a woman, it is not marriage.  If it does not involve the use of the procreative power, it is not marriage.  It has to be all of these things or it is not marriage.  Added to a natural definition of marriage, of course, is a theological one.  We could not by our own unassisted reason know that marriage reflects the unbreakable union between Christ and His Church.  All marriages do, but differ by kind and degree.  We could not have the sacrament of marriage without another essential part, namely, the baptism of both parties. 

 

Our opposition to gay marriages does not stem on a purely legal construct but on a reality of nature and (in many cases) of super-nature.  We oppose gay marriage on the basis that the legal approbation of such a union is not based upon any ontological realities.  We oppose the idea that the state can dissolve marriage by divorce on the basis of an ontological reality and nature of the marriage bond, not legality.  A solid formation in philosophy will enrich this understanding in a way my few paragraphs cannot hope to accomplish.  Unfortunately, though, people want to skip the philosophy and jump into theology and this has disastrous results.  They do not realize that the very language of theology has been hammered out throughout the centuries and specific definitions have been assigned to certain phrases.  If we do not acknowledge and understand the different essences of the different vocations, we cannot begin to defend these vocations against false ones.  We will no be ale to defend true marriage from false marriage (like gay marriage or polygamous marriage).  We will not be able to tell the difference between the CV and a Religious. 

[abrideofChrist]

The reason that I, and others, oppose the alternative theory proposed on the other thread about the essence of the Bridal identity of the CV is because this reality is not based on  a purely legal construct of the Church.  In other words, it is not merely a purely canonical definition.  As a matter of fact, one pivotal fact Sponsa Christi overlooked in her explanation of the reality of the Bride of Christ is that the reality existed before the canon in the Code of Canon law did!  Thus, if this were purely a canonical construct as she would like us to believe, then it could not have existed before 1983 when canon 604 was brought into being.  The Rite of Consecration to Virginity has its roots in the Annunciation, and more to the point, the revised Rite was promulgated in 1970, a good 13 years before the new Code of Canon law came into effect.   We have to look to the Rite itself to understand the vocation if we realize that the Code is merely reflecting the reality that pre-existed.  And the Rite itself says that through the ministry of the Bishop, the Virgin is MADE INTO or CoNSTITuTED into a Bride of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  Just like marriage is what it is regardless of the laws on the books of different nations, so too, being a Bride of Christ is what it is, regardless of the laws in the Code of Canon Law.

[BarbTherese]

Thank you very much indeed to those who have spoken to my Posts. And please do forgive the stubbornness of an uneducated mind to cling to what The Church states in Her Teaching Authority - meant most sincerely.  I am not at all sure I am right (Truth) but until The Church actually makes a firm declaration changing what She is stating now, I am presupposing only that I am correct and for the purposes mainly of evangelisation. 

 

Transubstantiation or the ontological change brought about in the bread and wine changed ontologically into The Body of Blood of Christ cannot take place without that ontological change effected by Holy Orders in our priesthood.  Certainly, I was amazed, staggered and then laughed, that anyone could think that I would call Transubstantiation into any sort of question.  “Heresy” is a big accusation.  My meaning is that ontological change in a person/candidate only takes place in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders.

 

Certainly, the Grace of the other Sacraments, bring about change in the person, but not ontologically, in the essence of what they are. Not even marriage does this according to The Church.   I hope I am saying what I mean correctly!

 

              If a bishop can ontologically change, through the power of The Holy Spirit, one thing into another outside of The Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ seems to me to be the crux of the matter, although only three of those Seven Sacraments brings about ontological change in a person or candidate according to The Church. Of course in The Blessed Eucharist bread and wine is ontologically changed into The Body and Blood of Christ.  What appears to be present in Bread and Wine, is no longer present at all. It is The Lord!  These are all Sacraments, not a liturgical consecration rite conducted by a bishop i.e. consecrated virginity in this instance.

 

Perusing numerous sites, it seems to me that because theologians differ, the Consecration of Virgins and related theology is still in progress possibly.  Until The Church makes an actual declaration (after examining various theologians arguments put forward – and if She discerns such necessary over and above what is already stated on the subject) I do prefer to hold to what The Church states at this point.  Something indeed is taking place in reality when a virgin is consecrated, what exactly that something might be is still under debate it seems by some, not all - and some are contrary to what The Church states now, along with those who agree with Her.  It might be ontological change and it might not be is only a potential as the theology is developed and then confirmed by The Church if She deems necessary.  Seems to me The Church must first declare what indeed She anyway is meaning when She uses the word “ontological” since this word is also under debate.  It also seems to me that when a person uses "ontological" they could mean several things at this point.

 

Until The Church makes an actual declaration, I hold to what is already stated and will most certainly change my mind if The Church in Her Teaching Authority indicates that such a change is necessary in the minds of Catholics.

 

 

 

http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/theology-of-body-order-of-consecrated.html

 

In the Order of consecrated virgins, the  role of the body is important in its Nuptial meaning . That’s what gives the consecrated virgin her Identity. But it is not limited to the body. It is a consecration of her whole being , every dimension of her life  to God .  Several theologians suggest that an ontological change  is effected by the ‘prayer of consecration’ during the Rite of consecration to a life of virginity  which leads to the permanent nature of the consecration which cannot be dispensed .

 

 

 

 

 

http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/ocv-archetype-of-sacrament-of-matrimony.html

• 
  
• Some  understand the Rite  according to the theology of the Annunciation . The words in the Prayer of Consecration – which is a constitutive sacramental -   bring about an ontological  change in the person of the virgin  perhaps similar to transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ  in the sacrament of the eucharist.   
• 
  
• Whatever the approach to the understanding of the Rite , to benefit from its empowerment and grace , it is indeed important  for  each one to  be aware of  their roles  and have the correct intentions  according to the mind of the church , throughout the rite.  Otherwise  there can be doubts regarding the validity of the consecrations of  many  CVs around the world  since this vocation is little understood  almost everywhere !     

   

I tried to find out who my quoted source above actually is.  I could not find details.  A very quick perusal of the USACV website could not locate the word “ontological” anywhere at all.  I did not, of course, read all the links on the website.  Insofar as I can discern anyway, such as I am, The Church does not declare ontological change in the consecrated virgin.

 

The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth, is THE only Bride of Christ - all vocations reflect/image/witness this in some way including in the consecrated virgin, eschatologically.