Bride Of Christ

[God's Beloved]

Baptism of both parties and consummation of a valid marriage are the two elements needed for an indissoluble sacramental union.  The non-confirmed status of the baptized non-Catholic is irrelevant with regards to both validity of the marriage and its indissolubility.

 

A CV lacking the Sacramental strengthening of Confirmation would still be validly consecrated since the object of her consecration is not the strengthening of her baptismal commitment  (Confirmation) but the creation of a spousal bond with Christ.

 

 

Thanks AbrideofChrist !

 

1. If a baptized protestant belonging to a main-line church that allows divorce , marries a baptized and confirmed catholic according to the catholic rite for marriage ,  is the marriage  considered a Sacrament in the mind of the catholic church ?

 

2.  I am looking at the sacrament of confirmation , not from perspective of strengthening of baptismal commitment , but as completing the Initiation of a person into the Church . [ in the history of the church at various times there has been emphasis on strengthening  / completion of Initiation etc]. 

 

3.I think a person who is baptized  goes through an ontological change in the sense that the person can answer ' Who am I ?'  with ' I am a Christian ' .

 

But a person who is baptized yet not confirmed  will not be able to represent the church or act In persona ecclesia.

 

4.The  sacrament of confirmation confers the seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit , thus imparting a character  , seal .

 

The prayer of consecration of virgins mentions these seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit , focused / fine - tuned  to live the particular Charism of  CV.

 

Without the previously received gift of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation , there won't be fine-tuning of  the seven-fold gifts for the living of the Charism of CV.

 

Also unlike the Sacrament of marriage , I don't think  the reception of confirmation 'after' the consecration of a virgin will  be effective . According to me the virgin would need to receive the consecration again.

[Benedictus]

But why would the church allow a woman who wasn't confirmed to be consecrated a CV in the first place? Surely they'd usually ask for confirmation to be completed first before going forward -  is doesn't seem somehow unreasonable. As far as I'm aware virtually all the institutes I've come across expect the person to be baptised, confirmed and practising for a number of years before entering formation that could lead towards consecration. Someone 'is' Catholic at baptism, and can receive communion, but confirmation definitely shouldn't be considered optional for adults wishing to take on a public consecration.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Benedictus

[abrideofChrist]

Thanks AbrideofChrist !

 

1. If a baptized protestant belonging to a main-line church that allows divorce , marries a baptized and confirmed catholic according to the catholic rite for marriage ,  is the marriage  considered a Sacrament in the mind of the catholic church ?

 

2.  I am looking at the sacrament of confirmation , not from perspective of strengthening of baptismal commitment , but as completing the Initiation of a person into the Church . [ in the history of the church at various times there has been emphasis on strengthening  / completion of Initiation etc]. 

 

3.I think a person who is baptized  goes through an ontological change in the sense that the person can answer ' Who am I ?'  with ' I am a Christian ' .

 

But a person who is baptized yet not confirmed  will not be able to represent the church or act In persona ecclesia.

 

4.The  sacrament of confirmation confers the seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit , thus imparting a character  , seal .

 

The prayer of consecration of virgins mentions these seven-fold gifts of the Holy Spirit , focused / fine - tuned  to live the particular Charism of  CV.

 

Without the previously received gift of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation , there won't be fine-tuning of  the seven-fold gifts for the living of the Charism of CV.

 

Also unlike the Sacrament of marriage , I don't think  the reception of confirmation 'after' the consecration of a virgin will  be effective . According to me the virgin would need to receive the consecration again.

 

1)  My research indicates that yes, it is sacramental as long as it is valid. The same goes for marriages between Catholics.  It is sacramental as long as it is valid.  It is not sacramental and not valid if it isn't valid!

 

2)  Certainly, it completes initiation of the Catholic. 

 

3)  The virgin does not act in persona Ecclesia the same way a priest acts in persona Christi.  She is

the perfect image of the Church and what she does is informed by her identity (i.e. the married woman's virtue is informed by her being a married woman) but she does not act in the Church's name in effecting something that the rest of the faithful cannot do.

 

4)  The sacrament of Confirmation is not listed among the requirements for validity of the Consecration.  Therefore we cannot claim that such a consecration is invalid.  Certainly the CV would be a party to less graces than the confirmed person, but again, confirmation is a separate reality than being consecrated a Bride of Christ with the nuptial bond being established.  Neither confirmation nor the Consecration can be repeated.

 

While we're at it, we are discussing a mostly theoretical situation as Benedictus is right in thinking that usually bishops take great care to ensure sacramental preparation of those desiring to be in consecrated life.  It is most important for religious, whose vows of religion ARE a strengthening of their baptismal call but NOT a necessary consequence of baptism/confirmation to have completed the Sacraments of initiation.  The spousal bond created by the Consecration of Virgins is different in nature than religious consecration.
 

[Benedictus]

But canon law requires that all institutes only admit those who have been baptised, confirmed and have free status (Canon 645). I would have assumed this would equally apply to CV's, the bishop taking on this responsibility. But as you say, if there is a mishap on this level and someone does manage to get consecrated without confirmation then I'm not sure how it would be handled. Maybe they'd need to be confirmed as soon as possible?.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Benedictus

[abrideofChrist]

But canon law requires that all institutes only admit those who have been baptised, confirmed and have free status (Canon 645). I would have assumed this would equally apply to CV's, the bishop taking on this responsibility. But as you say, if there is a mishap on this level and someone does manage to get consecrated without confirmation then I'm not sure how it would be handled. Maybe they'd need to be confirmed as soon as possible?.

 

All who are baptized and not yet confirmed are required to get confirmed.  Thus, if for some extraordinary reason a CV is discovered to have never have been confirmed, then yes, she is to be confirmed as soon as possible. 

 

You would have to ask a canon lawyer as to whether not being confirmed against the requirement of canon 645 would be invalidating or illicit for religious.  Canon 645 though, would be binding on religious and not CVs.  The requirements for CVs are laid out in Canon 604 and in the Rite of Consecration.
 

Edited August 16, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[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.

 

Has anyone tried to think about this and how this applies to the topic at hand?  Just wondering because virginity is understood in relation to marriage.
 

[Ima Lurker]

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.

 

 

I am having a hard time understanding what you mean. Can someone please expand on this? ABC, when you say that a marriage bond can form, you DO mean when they're married by a priest in the Church, right? Not that God sanctions this without the usual minister? 

[God's Beloved]

But canon law requires that all institutes only admit those who have been baptised, confirmed and have free status (Canon 645). I would have assumed this would equally apply to CV's, the bishop taking on this responsibility. But as you say, if there is a mishap on this level and someone does manage to get consecrated without confirmation then I'm not sure how it would be handled. Maybe they'd need to be confirmed as soon as possible?.

 

I have been referring to a real case of a CV who did not go through the RCIA  which ensures that all 3 sacraments of BCE are given at the Easter vigil.  The vocation being little known  at the time of her consecration , actually it was not taken seriously by the bishop  in comparison to religious life . It is only recently that they have started understanding the seriousness of the canon 604 vocation.

 

She received confirmation some years after her consecration.  I think the church  needs to put  all these requirements clearly in canon law . They are so important !

[God's Beloved]

Putting all the recent posts together :

 

1.The Church allows a Non-Sacramental marriage in the Church , between a baptized and non-baptized party. This creates a true and valid spousal bond . They are married , but they do not image the union between  Christ and the Church  , hence the marriage is not Sacramental . It is not indissoluble.  If the non-baptized party later receives baptized , their marriage  becomes sacramental  due to   baptism.

 

2.If two baptized persons get married in the church according to the approved rite and other requirements laid down by the Episcopal Conference  , their marriage is Sacramental .

 

--If  it is not consummated due to physical union , it can be dissolved .

--If it is consummated  in physical union , it cannot be dissolved by any power on earth.

 

In the consecration of virgins , tradition  has often referred to the Prayer of consecration and the Blessing at the end of the Mass as reflecting the union between  Christ with His body, the church . Tradition also sees it as a union between the virgin and the Risen body of Christ , just as it will happen with all christians at the resurrection of the body at His second coming. CV charism is to be an eschatological image of this union between the church and Christ.

 

- The Rite of Consecration of vrigins being a 'Constitutive sacramental' , it is through the action of the Holy Spirit according to the words of the prayer of consecration that this union takes place between the human nature of the virgin and the divine Word of God. The Word then possesses her completely. This is the mystical marriage that contains the call to give Jesus Christ to the world in service .The Virgin Mary-after she had conceived Jesus in her womb --set out to visit her cousin Elizabeth to serve her.

 

 

In case of Nuns who have a spousal spirituality in their monastery , their monastic profession [if it specifically refers to spousal union] ,perhaps brings about a spousal bond with Christ which is dissoluble.........or is like an engagement , but the reception of the Consecration to a life of Virginity  at the time of their Final Profession or several years later ,  is analogous to the consummation of  marriage in the sacrament of matrimony , which makes the bond indissoluble.

 

I think , if a virgin receives the consecration without  the sacrament of confirmation ,  she will have a true and valid spousal bond with Christ , but the  aspect of  consecration/ dedication to the service of the church may not be realised.

 

[abrideofChrist]

God'sBeloved, I'd agree with you mostly (natural marriages are forerunners of Christian marriage and consequently must be said to reflect Christ's union at least slightly since it is patterned off of imaging God's union with the human race) and you cannot separate consecration from the spousal bond.

 

To everyone else.  What makes a person married?  What is the difference between a man and woman with their children who cohabit and a man and woman with their children who are married?  Is it merely a piece of paper?  Is it merely a law cooked up by Society or the Church?  Is there an ontological difference between the single person and the married person? 

Edited August 16, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

Cont'd.  Please explain your position regarding the substantial difference between marriage and cohabitation, and cite whatever you can from the Popes and authoritative sources. Is anyone besides God'sBeloved (and Laurie) able to do this kind of research?  Here's another way of thinking about the problem.  Many people today do not know the difference between gay marriage, cohabitation, and marriage.  How would you explain true marriage to them?  How do you explain the marriage bond? Is this bond real?  Is it purely legal?  Is it just a matter of faith that Catholics believe without any natural reason?  Does it exist in reality?  Is there a true difference between the single person and the married person in the eyes of God?  In the eyes of society?  (Like, why doesn't the Church believe divorce dissolves a natural marriage?)  I ask these questions because unless you can answer them, you will not be able to identify the nature of the CVs vocation.

[Ima Lurker]

Cont'd.  Please explain your position regarding the substantial difference between marriage and cohabitation, and cite whatever you can from the Popes and authoritative sources. Is anyone besides God'sBeloved (and Laurie) able to do this kind of research?  Here's another way of thinking about the problem.  Many people today do not know the difference between gay marriage, cohabitation, and marriage.  How would you explain true marriage to them?  How do you explain the marriage bond? Is this bond real?  Is it purely legal?  Is it just a matter of faith that Catholics believe without any natural reason?  Does it exist in reality?  Is there a true difference between the single person and the married person in the eyes of God?  In the eyes of society?  (Like, why doesn't the Church believe divorce dissolves a natural marriage?)  I ask these questions because unless you can answer them, you will not be able to identify the nature of the CVs vocation.

 

This is a very intriguing line of thought. Are there any other scholars on PM who could tackle this? I would love to understand the CVs identity. 

 

ABC, there is a CV here who is studying to be a Canon lawyer. Perhaps you could ask her if she would share the benefits of her research (time permitting)?

 

I know at least one Catholic couple who are struggling to get their marriage validated. If it's just a job, then why isn't the legal document enough? If marriage doesn't effect an ontological change, then why is the Sacrament of Marriage necessary? If marriage is JUST duties performed, an outward title, or even merely a Canonically recognized State, then why are my friends going through a TON of red tape just to get their marriage recognized? 

 

This is confusing for me. On the one hand, the Church is saying there IS no marriage between these people, and on the other hand, I'm reading here that marriage is just a job or Spousal gift that deepens the Baptismal commitment which would indicate that there is no need for the Sacrament. 

 

I'm looking forward to meeting up with my theologian friend to share these thoughts but was hoping someone here could provide more insight, please. And thank  you.

 

Peace! 

Edited August 16, 2013 by Ima Lurker

[abrideofChrist]

Thank you, Ima for your insightful questions.  You have brought in a lot to think about, and even though you are not a scholar, you at least share a scholar's traits in being open to the truth, doing research, reading up on things, and asking questions that require more than a superficial answer.  Perhaps after you've spoken to your theologian friend, you can share with us any new insights.  I think I know the CV to whom you are referring.  As you pointed out, she is a student and I would not want to put her on the spot as I don't know where she's at in her education.  She may not have taken classes on the Church's teachings on the nature of marriage yet.  You'd probably be better off asking some of the CVs who have completed their theology or canon law degrees, or your local pastor or your local diocesan pro life/marriage office about this.

Edited August 16, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Ima Lurker]

Thank you for your courteous response. 

 

I'll let you know what I learn, thank you for your time! 

 

This has been wonderful for me, a chance to learn about a new vocation, one that I can't experience personally but can be edified by. 

[God's Beloved]

As I was reading on Ontology, I came across something that talked about  Transsignification and Transfinality in terms of  different dimensions of Ontological change . The former is closer to the change in Essence / Being  while the latter is in relation to the change in Purpose / meaning / function . This is also often discussed  while studying  about the sacrament of Eucharist. There is material on the net regarding the two dimensions of Ontological change .

 

I am going for Mass now, shall read further and share later.