Bride Of Christ

[Ima Lurker]

You know, I really appreciate what you've written here. When I first started reading this thread, I didn't know what ontology was, or univocal vs equivocal, and just recently I learned what "transignifcation" is.

 

Learning about this vocation got me truly excited about it and I've been sharing what I've learned with my friends and family who have responded warmly.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you (ABC) have come full circle here. By explaining what transignification is, you've managed to show what the ontological change actually is.

 

What's next?

 

Laurie, you have yet to post your promised thoughts analogies. I know you must be very busy but when you get the chance, I haven't forgotten and am happily waiting! Thanks!

[abrideofChrist]

Fr. Ludwig Munster wrote a book for nuns who were preparing to become CVs and for nun CVs who wanted to meditate upon their great gift of consecration, Christ in his Consecrated Virgins.

 

Here are some gems:

 

The consecration of virgins is Christ's espousal with the virgin.  Veil, ring and crown are symbols of the interior glory of the bridal relationship between Christ and the virgin. Chapter 11.

 

 

The bishop asks the virgins, "Do you desire to persevere in the state of holy virginity?"  They answer, "We desire it."  By these words the virgin pledges herself to Christ before the Church and God.  This pledge has a legal character.  In the subsequent consecration it receives the seal of indissolubility.  Chapter 6

 

 

Now, when a virgin is consecrated a bride of Christ, when God shows His generous love again, the whole Church must pour forth her gratitude in memory of all the great and wonderful works of divine omnipotence.  When a virgin becomes a bride of Christ the whole Church rejoices, for she herself again receives new life and love from Christ.  She grows and expands whenever Christ reveals Himself as the Spouse of a virgin.  And that his why she gives thanks always.

 

 

These words are striking when Munster is referring to nuns who are preparing to receive the Consecration of Virgins.  If a nun was a bride of Christ, why would he say Christ is espousing her at her Consecration? 

[abrideofChrist]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you (ABC) have come full circle here. By explaining what transignification is, you've managed to show what the ontological change actually is.

 

 

Actually, I haven't shown the nature of the change, just that there is an ontological change.  I believe it is what it says it is- that a spousal bond has been established between Christ and the virgin by the bishop's ministry.  But the categorization of this bond is not something I have specified too particularly.     
 

[Laurie]

Actually, MarysLittleFlower, you need to add one more qualifier to Sponsa Christi's explanation.  Insert "Sacramental" to her definition and you're good to go.

 

To build on this, and to your earlier question, MLF, Jimmy Akin is a pretty clear explainer of these things:

 

http://jimmyakin.com/2008/05/sacramental-mar.html

[Laurie]

Adding to our citations demonstrating that the consecration of a virgin is separate from a private vow and that God chooses to act directly through the Church (versus the idea that a CV receives her spousal identity directly from God with the Church simply confirming it) here are some helpful items:

 

From the homily in the Rite itself:

http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes-Decree.pdf

 

“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 for ever.”

 

[Laurie]

And, from Bishop Pierre Raffin, OP (Bishop of Metz):

 

“THE VOCATION AND MISSION OF CONSECRATED VIRGINS ACCORDING TO ORDO CONSECRATIONIS VIRGINUM”

 

[After discussing that the consecration of a virgin is a sacramental, and that a sacramental is effected through the Church, he writes]:

 

“Public and Solemn Consecration.

The words Ordo Consecrationis indicate that the consecration of virgins is primarily an act of the Church rather than a step taken by one person, or to put it better, an act of God himself through the ministry of the Church.”

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the replies! I'm a bit confused about marriage still. What do you mean by "dissoluble"? Because isn't it true if someone has a valid marriage and get divorced, the second marriage would not be valid because the first one was? that's why we don't believe in divorce.... so I'm confused about what you mean by 'dissoluble'.

Edited August 19, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Laurie]

MLF, the link I gave from Jimmy Akin gives a good overview, including answering your specific question:

 

"It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person."

[abrideofChrist]

MLF, the link I gave from Jimmy Akin gives a good overview, including answering your specific question:

 

"It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person."

 

MLF, this is exactly what I was talking about in your thread.  Laurie took the time and provided a link to an article that addressed your original question.  You responded by repeating your question in a way that told us that either you did not read Jimmy Akin's article or you didn't understand what you read, even though it explicitly answered your question.  Frankly, if it were me who had gotten the link from Laurie, I would have read it.  CAREFULLY.  (I did as a matter of fact read it carefully and thought it was so crystal clear I was astounded to see your follow up question.)  Then I would have googled the terms I didn't understand.  For example, I would have googled Petrine privilege.  I would have googled Petrine privilege and divorce and Catholic.  I would have expended some elbow grease to figure out what dissoluble meant with regard to divorce.  And you know what?  Then I would have come to the conclusion after my internet research that there is a bond of marriage between validly married persons.  This bond can be natural, or it can be sacramental.  Of all the real, existing bonds of marriage, only ONE is indissoluble.  ALL THE REST are dissoluble. 

 

Then I would have realized, also from my research, that interestingly enough, the Church claims the authority to dissolve a marriage bond.This is why she objects to civil divorce.  It's not that the state can't dissolve a contract, but that the contract of marriage is not something the state has the power to dissolve.  Then I would have realized something else.  The reason that the Church is fighting to uphold the dignity of marriage is because some people think it's only a contract, only a legal piece of paper.  That it is a creation of the STATE instead of God. 

 

If marriage is a creation of the STATE then gay Marriage is possible, because it is defined by the State and has no reality other than pure legal fiction.  If marriage is an invisible reality that really and truly makes the person have a bond with another person, then we have to question the nature of that bond.  The Church did question and did come to conclusions about that bond.  Why do you think we have annulments and the Pauline/Petrine privileges?  Are they purely legal fiction of the Church's invention or do they speak to an invisible reality? 

 

This brings us back to my earlier points in this thread.  If it is true that marriage does not effect an ontological change in the spouses, then technically they are still single.  Therefore, those who state that only three Sacraments effect an ontological change are mistaken.  Why are they mistaken?  Laurie gave some compelling reasons. Then I go back to the idea of marriage.  Consecrated virginity, according to the Catechism, cannot be understood without reference to marriage and marriage cannot be understood without reference to consecrated virginity.  So, if even purely natural non sacramental marriage starts a bond that not even the State can dissolve, then maybe the bond the CV has is something that is likewise real and invisible.  If we claim that there is no real change, then we slip into the same mistake the State and Sponsa Christi make, namely that the reality is purely legal fiction.

 

Now, you could ask me what I mean by all of this, or you could do some elbow grease and get to work researching marriage and divorce and dissolution and annulment and bond and indissoluble bond and why gay marriage isn't marriage and all that stuff so that you know from your standpoint we are on the same page.  I would welcome a question that shows that you have indeed done some research into the nature of marriage and are at a point where you can start applying your knowledge to consecrated virginity.  I am not trying to be hard on you, I am simply saying that Laurie and I can't be depended upon to do all the research, especially when things that are cited that provide explicit answers are somehow ignored or misunderstood.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Okay, I tried doing some research and came across this link: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272

 

It talks about cases if a person:

- marries a non Christian, as a non Christian, and later becomes Christian and faces opposition for their faith in a way that it's threatened

- marries a non Christian, as a Christian. (but the article says this is given very rarely and only by the Pope)

 

I have never heard of this before.. I thought there was only annulment, not a dissolution of a valid marriage. The article did say that the first one involves a threat to the faith, and the second is granted very rarely only by the Pope; I don't really understand the second one and the reasons for it, just from this research.

 

Then, it was mentioned in this thread that a non consummated Sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

 

I got confused cause I know the Church is against divorce and I thought a valid marriage can never be dissolved except by death...

 

am I right in understanding that two non Christians who marry, would commit adultery by divorcing and remarrying, if they didn't receive one of these dissolutions? for example if they both stay non Christian, and just divorce in a civil court. My understanding is that divorce doesn't exist, so nothing happens - as you said, because it's not the State's authority.

 

By the way I did read the article that Laurie posted... I'm just trying to understand these concepts, because for example there's the quote from the Council of Trent:

“The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of Matrimony perpetual and indissoluble…”

If marriage is indissoluble, then how can dissolution happen... Still trying to understand that part... cause I know the Church is against divorce. Is dissolution a type of exception, if the faith is threatened?

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=569940It says here though that in the Pauline privilege, the baptized person should not be the one who is seeking to leave... so it's like they're left by their spouse, for being Christian?

[abrideofChrist]

am I right in understanding that two non Christians who marry, would commit adultery by divorcing and remarrying, if they didn't receive one of these dissolutions? for example if they both stay non Christian, and just divorce in a civil court. My understanding is that divorce doesn't exist, so nothing happens - as you said, because it's not the State's authority.

 

The answer to this question is implicit in the article you cited.  It is not as simple and straightforward as you might imagine.  You could, of course, look up annulments and divorce and remarriage as understood by civil authorities AND by the Church.

[MarysLittleFlower]

hmm.. my understanding is that if a non Christian couple divorces, the dissolution doesn't actually occur... the article doesn't seem to talk about dissolutions in this case. Am I correct? Cause I know civil authorities think divorce exists, but the Church says it doesn't, and the article seems to imply to me that natural marriages are indissoluble except if one of the people becomes a Christian and the other leaves due to this... or regarding annulment, however I'm not sure how this couple would get the annulment, if they're not Catholic.

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[abrideofChrist]

I don't understand why you are relying on one article.  Especially as I can tell you the writer has made a fundamental mistake in one of his claims.  When I said research, I really meant serious research.  There are other articles on the internet.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Can you tell me at least what topic the mistake was about? I don't know what to research even because there are so many topics.

 

I understand about doing one's own research. I am trying to research this. But I also have a tremendous amount of other things to figure out and to research. For this reason, when I come across an article I tend to just accept it, unless there's a reason to think it contains errors. I didnt' suspect an error from that particular source so I didn't look at other articles.