Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

 

Something else is that, in your original posts here, http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/ you were comparing the Rite of Religious Profession to the homily to be given at the Rite of Consecration of a Virgin, rather than the Consecratory Prayer itself, which does not have more spousal language than the Rite of Religious Profession, http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes/rite.pdf (posting link for others to refer to)

 

Still I do still see that the Rite of Consecrated Virginity is something unique to Solemn Profession, for instance in its permanent character, with the possibility that the Pope could dispense someone from the obligations of religious vows (& they could validly enter marriage after this) while this would not be possible for a CV, right? also the requirement for a CV to be a physical virgin is unique to that Rite. 

 

Anyway, sorry I am thinking out loud here in much of this post. I am still trying to understand this. 

 

 

Why did I quote the homily rather than the Consecration prayer?  Very simple.  The Homily is the only place where the Church explicitly designates who shares with her the Title of Bride of Christ.  The Homily tells the virgin that she IS a MOTHER, she IS a BRIDE, she IS a VIRGIN and why.  The Homily makes it quite clear that the CV shares the Church's own charism of being Bride of Christ.  The actual prayer of consecration make it clear that this is a one on one relationship.  Be her comfort in sorrow and all that is very spousal.

 

The Profession on the other hand, has ITS most spousal references in the prayer of blessing/consecration.  There, the language is very different.  Instead of telling the professed religious that she IS a Virgin, she is told to honor her vow of chastity.  Instead of telling the professed religious she is a Mother, the prayer tells her to look up to the Church as her Mother!  Instead of telling the religious that she shares the title of Bride of Christ with the Church, she simply calls her espoused.  That is much more generic language and can be seen in the documents that pertain to consecrated life in general even in documents that contain references to male religious because the Church is making the distinction that even though monks and nuns reflect her bridal nature better than a lay person, the Church is not saying that monks and nuns are Brides of Christ by virtue of their Profession.  This, as I have said many times, is reserved to CVs, some of whom happen to be nuns.

 

As for causing division in contemplative communities, I can only respond by saying that we wouldn't dream of denying men from taking Orders if their constitutions and superiors permit it under the excuse that it causes division. 

 

Why did Sponsa Christi allow for nuns to continue to receive the Consecration?  Why did Vatican II ask for the Rite to be reformed?  Why does the Rite continue to be misunderstood and rejected?  I think because it mirrors the mystery of the Church herself in such a profound way that it is difficult to understand. It is, frankly, a lot easier to understand the virtue of chastity than the virtue of virginity.  The fact is that all of the Saints have consistently taught the superiority of virginity to widowhood and marriage.  It is a mystery as to why that is.  Meanwhile, we have to tighten our language to reflect reality.  We need to stop using consecrated virginity as a synonym for consecrated chastity.  This equivocation is no longer useful when there are now consecrated virgins again in great numbers.  Someone has pointed out that it is the fastest growing vocation in the world.

 

The best defense I have personally read for calling nuns "brides of Christ" actually quotes from the Rite of Consecration as its strongest reason for saying all nuns/sisters are brides of Christ.  That, if you think about it, is very telling because the author had to quote verbatim from the Rite which means that if this was the best thing they could muster and it wasn't even their vocation, then they didn't have a solid case.

 

 

[Chiquitunga]

just read your new post as I was about to post this one... need to read it again, and reflect. thank you! I also posted a few minutes ago at the end of page 4 too.

 

The presentation of the ring for religious goes like this:

Receive this ring, for you are betrothed to the eternal King; keep faith with your Bridegroom so that you may come to the wedding feast of eternal joy.
 

 

presentation of the ring for a Poor Clare Colettine

 

The Insignia of Profession
The Blessing of the ring 

Celebrant 
Lord of eternal faithfulness 
bless this ring + 
the symbol of your covenant 
with your sister and bride, N of N.

As a circle has no beginning or end, 
so too, your love is endless and complete. 

Fashioned in silver,
it is a sign of the poverty you have chosen for your bride. 
May she wear it in trust until the day she is united to you in heaven.

As she places the ring on the Sister's finger Mother Abbess says: 

I espouse you to Jesus Christ 
the Son of the most high Father 
who will protect you.
Receive the ring of faith, 
the seal of the Holy Spirit, 
that you may be called the spouse of Christ. 
Love Him totally who gave Himself totally for your love.

 

 

http://tmdclareway.blogspot.com/2009/05/praise-god-by-your-life.html

 

It is true that it does not necessarily have to be a bishop who is the Celebrant here and the second part is the Abbess who espoused the Nun to Jesus Christ, but for a religious her Superior represents Christ for her.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I'm trying to understand this... because I would always think of nuns as brides of Christ. Then I found out that they don't have the consecration of Virgins. Maybe this makes the spousal element less obvious in the rite, compared to Consecrated Virginity where it's very obvious. However, can they still be brides of Christ? I'm thinking of how some orders have the wedding dresses or the rings - and these are symbolic things that not every order has - but these things suggest a bridal sort of approach/understanding don't they? I know so little about the rites etc.

 

Maryslittleflower:

 

This is a very nuanced topic, so I suppose there’s no way that it could not be at least a little confusing.

 

But to use a very imperfect analogy to explain the way I think of the “bride of Christ” title as it relates to consecrated virgins vs. nuns:

 

The Sisters of Life have the protection of human life as the central element of their charism, and even make a special fourth vow to defend the sacredness of life. You could even say that the Sisters of Life are specially consecrated for the protection of life.

 

On the other hand, you could also have “Sister Mary” from an apostolic congregation with a wide variety of apostolates. It could be that Sister Mary has always been missioned to do pro-life work. Sister has accepted her assignments to pro-life apostolates out of obedience, but she also feels a special call to this kind of service. Seeing her zeal and gifts for serving women in crisis pregnancies, Sister Mary’s superiors have confirmed this “call with a call,” and have agreed to continue to assign her to pro-life apostolates whenever this is possible. Over the course of her religious life, Sister saves the lives of thousands of infants, and opens up new many new avenues of pro-life work for her congregation.

 

In one sense, you could say that “Sister Mary” isn’t as “officially” consecrated to the protection of life as a Sister of Life would be, since this isn’t the special charism of her community and because she didn’t make the same special fourth vow. But on the other hand, it also would be totally wrong to say “Sr. Mary isn’t really dedicated to the protection of life and wasn’t called by Jesus to do pro-life work, because she’s a Sister of ______ and not a Sister of Life!”

 

If you were a discerner who sincerely and deeply felt that working for pro-life causes was a central element of your vocation, it would make a lot of sense to discern with the Sisters of Life. It would also make sense to rule out religious communities  which weren’t open to specifically pro-life apostolates, or maybe even (depending on your situation and personal prayer and discernment on the matter) to rule out religious life entirely if it meant that you wouldn't be guaranteed to be working for the protection of life in at least some general way. But it would NOT make sense to say: “if I join the Sr. Mary’s community, that means I’ll never really be able to dedicate myself to the protection of the unborn.”

[Chiquitunga]

Sorry, really quick I feel I have to say something for Discalced Carmelite Nuns :) They do not receive a ring at Solemn Profession, as it is not their custom (though some do today) but rather the black veil (which they receive only after Solemn Profession) is the insigna of their profession.

 

As a side note, in the Veiling ceremony from 1932 it does have the Celebrant (which is normally a bishop) addressing the newly professed Nun "Veni Sponsa Christi" 

 

And after she is veiled she says, "He has put a sign upon my face," to which the Community responds, "That I may admit no other lover except Him."

 

The best defense I have personally read for calling nuns "brides of Christ" actually quotes from the Rite of Consecration as its strongest reason for saying all nuns/sisters are brides of Christ.  That, if you think about it, is very telling because the author had to quote verbatim from the Rite which means that if this was the best thing they could muster and it wasn't even their vocation, then they didn't have a solid case.

 

Is this in Fr. Dubay's book? I need to read that. Also, you mentioned another book in this thread or another by a Benedictine Abbess about the Rite of Consecration of a Virgin. I will have to read that also to get a better understanding.

 

But overall, I still feel that one cannot say the Rite of Religious Profession is not spousal. The language used in it certainly is. If Christ is someone's only Bridegroom, what does that make that someone?

 

One more question, and I will take a break here for a while (& read again what you wrote and consider it) isn't the Rite of Religious Profession for men different than this one for women? If so, something in that is differentiating a Nun from a Monk/Brother/Friar because she can be called in a special way Christ's bride and her Profession is more spousal than that of a male Religious.

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

I don't think anything I can say will help you see that in calling a nun a "bride of Christ" it is not taking ANYTHING away from your particular vocation in which you are publicly Consecrated to a life of Virginity as a spouse of Christ. Even the language of "bride of Christ" is "borrowing" from the vocation of marriage and yet it doesn't lessen the particular vocation of marriage.

 

I think you are conflating or confusing the RITE of consecration and the reality of being a spouse of Christ. When I made Profession I was already living the reality to be poor, chaste and obedient belonging to Christ totally. The ritual of profession confirmed what I was already living and set me in a fixed state of life with both privileges and obligations. It also means that I am now saying with my life that I belong totally to Christ and that the Church confirms this profession. The chastity that a religious professes is that of perpetual continency/virginity. But it is not a virginity specifically consecrated solemnly as is that of a Consecrated Virgin. Nor does a consecrated virgin make a solemn vow of obedience and poverty and yet she is called to live those virtues because of her consecration.

Those who make a private vow of virginity to Christ are not less spouses of Christ but it is not a public act consecrated by the Church with rights and privileges. Surely St. Agnes and St Catherine and the other early virgins were still true spouses of Jesus even though the rite of consecration didn't exist.

 

The distinctions are important. But it is not a matter of either/or. For centuries nuns have understood their consecration in spousal terms and to say that this is wrong is extreme. Nor does it take away from the specific vocation of a Consecrated Virgin.

[abrideofChrist]

I don't think anything I can say will help you see that in calling a nun a "bride of Christ" it is not taking ANYTHING away from your particular vocation in which you are publicly Consecrated to a life of Virginity as a spouse of Christ. Even the language of "bride of Christ" is "borrowing" from the vocation of marriage and yet it doesn't lessen the particular vocation of marriage.

 

I think you are conflating or confusing the RITE of consecration and the reality of being a spouse of Christ.

Those who make a private vow of virginity to Christ are not less spouses of Christ but it is not a public act consecrated by the Church with rights and privileges. Surely St. Agnes and St Catherine and the other early virgins were still true spouses of Jesus even though the rite of consecration didn't exist.

 

 

In your first paragraph you prove my point.  Consecrated virginity is essential spousal.  Religious life is not.  Notice that religious life is not borrowing explicitly from the vocation of marriage.  Incidentally, you may note that the Church does explicitly say that CVs represent what marriage foreshadows.  None of that language is in the Rite of Profession for Religious Women.

 

No, I'm not conflating the Rite.  I am talking about essentials and about ontological reality.  You have still yet to prove that your vocation is spousal in nature such that it is the essence of your vocation.  Poverty, chastity, and obedience, nice as they are, do not appear to me to be spousal in nature.  And frankly, just because the Rites of Profession are different for men/women doesn't mean that you've proven your point for women being brides of Christ.

 

St. Agnes and other early Christians virgins were veiled.  They were consecrated.  Our Lady received the first consecration of virginity as per Benedict XVI.  They did not make a private vow of virginity.  Please go back to the roots of consecrated life history and see that the Consecration to a life of virginity is the first form of consecrated life in the Church and no, it wasn't private.

 

Let me put this all in a different way.  What in your view makes the consecration to a life of virginity different from religious consecration essentially different?  Please do not say virginity as it is a condition for the consecration and not the essence itself.

[freedomreigns]

Doesn't it seem like a bit of hairsplitting?  I guess for those who think in very precise, categorical ways these distinctions might seem necessary.   i do know that a ton of religious consider themselves to be brides of Christ, and I have a sneaking suspicion the Lord Himself may see them this way.  

Edited July 22, 2013 by freedomreigns

[abrideofChrist]

Doesn't it seem like a bit of hairsplitting?  I guess for those who think in very precise, categorical ways these distinctions might seem necessary.   i do know that a ton of religious consider themselves to be brides of Christ, and I have a sneaking suspicion the Lord Himself may see them this way.  

 

Well, no.  It's not hairsplitting.  If you are a woman discerning your vocation, and the essence of religious life is discipleship and the essence of consecrated virginity is being a bride of Christ, then that will deeply influence your discernment if you qualify for both.  Further, knowing the distinction can help a person from falling for a community that misleads women into thinking that religious life or even private promises makes one a bride of Christ in the complete way that the Consecration does.  Clarifying what different vocations are or are not is not inherently an attack against other vocations but helps people to better understand what it is that they may be called to. For example, if you realize that you really want to be a bride of Christ, then you will not become a religious sister in simple vows.
 

[freedomreigns]

So, what would you say to St. Clare and St. Teresa of Avila (both religious) who spoke clearly of being "brides of Christ?" 

[freedomreigns]

And again, do you think the Alma Mercy sisters "mislead" people?  Of the CFR sisters?  or the Sisters of Life?  etc....

 

BTW...I should probably leave this conversation as I don't think that i can dispassionately talk about this when I do think that religious sisters who have devoted themselves in such a radical way to the Lord can consider themselves to be espoused to Christ, as pretty much all of them I have met do.  This is not my personal vocation, but I am blessed to be friends with a lot of these consecrated sisters and therefore may have a bit of emotion invested.

 

Peace to all.  

Edited July 22, 2013 by freedomreigns

[abrideofChrist]

And again, do you think the Alma Mercy sisters "mislead" people?  Of the CFR sisters?  or the Sisters of Life?  etc....

 

BTW...I should probably leave this conversation as I don't think that i can dispassionately talk about this when I do think that religious sisters who have devoted themselves in such a radical way to the Lord can consider themselves to be espoused to Christ, as pretty much all of them I have met do.  This is not my personal vocation, but I am blessed to be friends with a lot of these consecrated sisters and therefore may have a bit of emotion invested.

 

Peace to all.  

Let me repost part of my original post.  This time with a bolded section to respond to your question and the one in the post before it about religious foundresses like St. Teresa.

 

In a footnote, Fr. Thomas Dubay wrote: "Consecrated virginity is the highest form of perfect chastity, but virginity is not the object of the religious vow of chastity. One can take the religious vows even though she may have lost virginity." Elsewhere he writes, "Because the religious vow of chastity is not a vow of virginity, a non-virgin can become a religious and can even share by her complete self-donation in the sign character of the virgin. He says somewhere else that the image of bride of Christ is attributed to 1) the Church 2) the individual soul 3) those who have attained the transforming union of mystical prayer and 4) the consecrated virgin who alone is able to share in all four aspects.

 

Does that help?  I know that was on page one, but you did ask.

Edited July 23, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Pax_et bonum]

Is the Fr. Dubay book you've quoted from "And you are Christ's"? If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind telling me where that quote is found; the section it's in would be fine if you don't have the page number. There's no rush though since I'm away from home and don't have my copy of the book with me. I'd really appreciate it :)

 

Maybe this is just  :deadhorse: but I still don't understand how you hold the position that religious life isn't spousal when you look at the rites you posted on the first page. It says in the rite for religious "espoused to Christ" as well as calling her a bride, and for the presentation of the ring it says "your Bridegroom" for both religious and CVs. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think you've really responded to this except to ignore it and emphasize the word disciple before "espoused to Christ." 

 

And just as an aside, the community I really hope I'll be able to join accepts older vocations and widows, so I don't think I'd want the consecration of virginity when I know not all my sisters would be able to receive that consecration. That's a good point about priests and brothers in religious life, but I don't know, there's just something I don't like about the idea of some sisters being CVs and others not.

[Ex Tyburn Junior]

The Redemptoristines receive a ring at profession which is engraved with the words 'Ego Te Sponsabo' (I espouse thee). Seems pretty clear-cut to me. When in religious life I was very happy to think of myself as a bride of Christ, and live that way. I still think that way, now that I'm out of religious life but not married or dating!

 

Every human soul is called to a spousal relationship with Jesus. Some are given this espousing in this life to a higher degree than others, as a sign to encourage the rest of us.

 

In this life, a faithful consecrated virgin who perseveres until death has given a powerful eschatalogical sign of that spousal relationship. Women in religious life who persevere have also given that sign with their whole lives.

 

Both are consecrated; both do great good in the Church. I would hestitate to judge who has done the 'greater good' because I can't judge individual souls! But objectively, the consecrated and faithful virgin's is the highest spousal calling.

 

I don't quite know where I'd classify the virgin and holy priests who have served with their lives, nor the male and female virgin martyrs ... but anyway ... I know what I'm saying! It's not an 'in/out' or 'either/or' kind of thing, I believe.

[freedomreigns]

I will post one more thought...If it were such an error for religious sisters to consider themselves "brides of Christ" it would seem that the Church would correct the error given how widespread this point of view is amongst religious and the laity they serve.  I have serious doubts that it would be up to individual persons to enlighten us when the Church has a specific Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Societies.

[abrideofChrist]

Is the Fr. Dubay book you've quoted from "And you are Christ's"? If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind telling me where that quote is found; the section it's in would be fine if you don't have the page number. There's no rush though since I'm away from home and don't have my copy of the book with me. I'd really appreciate it :)

Yes, it is too much trouble.  I quoted him from several places and I am not going to look up his books/articles again to find the quotes.