Bride Of Christ—another Perspective

[AccountDeleted]

Barb - thank you for starting a thread for another point of view. I too have stayed away from the other thread so it would be nice if this one could remain charitable and without agendas.

[abrideofChrist]

Thank you for your response. I do realise this, yes. But with respect, I was not asking whether or not a nun could also be a consecrated virgin, nor was I asking whether there is a difference between consecrated and unconsecrated virgins. I know both of these to be the case. I was asking whether you think a nun who is a virgin (but not necessarily a consecrated virgin) could rightly consider herself a spouse of Christ. If you would like to answer, please do as I am interested in what you have to say.

While I am interested in this subject, I have stayed away from the other thread recently and only followed the first few pages of posts as I also found it to be too much of a debate. If this subject has been discussed at length there, I did not realise and thus apologise for bringing up something that has already been discussed to a great extent and perhaps already exhausted. :)

 

Spem, all of us can consider ourselves brides of Christ.  The question is how and in what manner do are we brides of Christ.  In the other thread, I explained that consecrated virgins are created into being actual brides of Christ, and how religious and virgin-religious and virgins-under-private-vows and others-in-consecrated-life participate in the universal bridehood of the Church.  In other words, I say that the very identity and essence of the consecrated virgin is To BE a bride of Christ whereas the very identity and essence of the religious nun is  TO BE a woman-dedicated-to-the-evangelical-counsels-by-vow-who-lives-communal-life-and-is-separated-from-the-world.   I say that the essence of the CV is to be bride and the essence of a religious is to be a follower of Christ (disciple). 

 

The quickest analogy I can make on this thread (it has been extensively treated on the other thread, one must overlook and skip over the nastiness) is that the CV enjoys the title Bride of Christ the same way an English peer enjoys a substantive title.  The religious enjoys the title Bride of Christ the same way an English noble enjoys a courtesy title (meaning it is by courtesy only but has no legal and factual standing).  The difficulty comes in when people confuse a courtesy title with a substantive title, believing they get in substance or essence what they get merely by participation. 

 

Sponsa Christi, on the other hand, appears to be taking a different stance.  If I am reading her correctly, she is positing one of two possible theories.  One is that the supreme devotion of a woman towards Christ whom she considers as her husband or spouse is a grace that MAKES her TO BE a bride of Christ.  Nothing that the Church does or does not do has any bearing on this grace (so you can be under a private vow; no need for any religious or virginal consecrations) because it is independent of any strict tie to the consecrated state as the Church defines it.  In this view, it is more like a mystical union than it is an actual existing nuptial bond because it is given to any soul as God wills.  Only, in this case, Sponsa Christi restricts it to women for some unknown reason.

 

The other way you could read Sponsa Christi in the OP is that she is positing that what we call being a Bride of Christ is amorphous by nature.  In other words, you can't pin it down or define it because it is not definable, it is not able to be categorized, it is shapeless, limitless, a a cloud-like entity.  I personally think this interpretation is closer to Sponsa Christi's meaning because she rejects the idea that the consecration of religious or the consecration of virgins can cause an ontological change.  You see, if there is no "real" change of the religious or the virgin who receives a consecration from the Church, then a consecration cannot exist in reality (or be said to exist ontologically).  A consecration has to exist in order for it to make the CV a bride of Christ or the religious a follower of Christ.  But if a bride of Christ is un-defineable and shapeless, and close to a non-existent reality, then it is amorphous. 

 

The reason why distinctions are made in the other thread is that most of us do not really believe that the consecration of religious or the consecration of virgins are amorphous.  We do not think it is impossible to define what it means to be a bride of Christ because we have clear Church teachings that help us to define the term.  Treating the term "bride of Christ" as amorphous is useful only if one wishes to avoid pondering true definitions of things that exist.  If we accept that there is something essentially different about the vocations to consecrated virginity per se and religious life per se, we have to make definitions to capture the essence of both respectively and part of their definitions would include the differences which make the essences different.  If we don't have any useful definitions for the term "bride of Christ" that describe its essence, it is either because there is no definition for the term (it is truly amorphous) or it is because we want to treat it as if it is amorphous.  I have given a definition.  Sponsa Christi appears to want to treat it as if it is truly or apparently amorphous.  If it is definitionless, then she can by definition, apply it however she wishes, because it is non-existent.  Thus, she can call women with private vows brides of Christ.  Why?  Because if there is no ontological being or reality known as "the bride of Christ", then nothingness called "the bride of Christ" can be posited of anything since it is basically meaningless. 

 

If this sounds confusing, the reason it is is because metaphysics is not easy to understand.  People who study ontology should have a serious grounding in philosophy so that they understand what esse and essentia are and what the concepts of essence and definitions and existence and analogy and participation are all about.  I hope this is helpful, since you did ask me to respond to you. 

[BarbTherese]

Barb - thank you for starting a thread for another point of view. I too have stayed away from the other thread so it would be nice if this one could remain charitable and without agendas.

 

Hi nunsense - I didn't start the thread but am feeling confused myself trying to understand and am starting to wish that I had not got involved in either thread really.  I thought I understood the vocation of CV, now I am rather confused.  I am trying to understand in order to insight The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ on earth overall and each vocation speaking of/witnessing to that Body and the role of the various vocations in The Church overall and this insights The Church Herself as The Mystical Body of Christ on earth. 

 

A thought has just occurred to me: I don't know who the original thread initiator actually is.  Is her name "Barb" too by any chance?.  If so, my apologies for getting things wrong..............what's new? :)

[BarbTherese]

Lost my edit time.  The other reason, I try to understand if possible is to explain to others.  I have just more or less had a lady leave who is non Catholic but likes the way that I talk about Jesus, religion, The Catholic Church integrated into normal everyday life without seeming to jar her out of one world into another, she says.  This lady and I meet regularly.  All sorts of subjects can come up with all sorts of people and I like to feel I have a working grasp on various matters. 

I think Catholic parents too always need a working grasp on Catholic matters in order to explain to their children and for one reason only.

Edited August 11, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[AccountDeleted]

Barb - sorry for the confusion - the OP was Sponsa-Christi but I must have just read one of your posts before I responded. I won't be posting here anymore since it is only going to turn into an extension of the last one and that doesn't interest me. Best to you. :)

[BarbTherese]

..........and best to you also, nunsense..... :) .......

I don't think I will remain in either thread either, it seems to be on a level that is personally totally beyond me.  I have read some time back the USACV website and that is the best I can do to inform myself I think.

[AccountDeleted]

..........and best to you also, nunsense..... :) .......

I don't think I will remain in either thread either, it seems to be on a level that is personally totally beyond me.  I have read some time back the USACV website and that is the best I can do to inform myself I think.

 

 

I don't think that the intellectual level is the problem Barb. But for me there is appears to be a serious disconnect on a spiritual level that makes me feel uncomfortable. Catch you in another thread!:)

[Spem in alium]

AbrideofChrist, thank you for your response. I appreciate its detail and I value both your and Sponsa Christi's opinions on this matter.

It has been interesting to learn about consecrated virginity. I am wondering though: after a virgin is consecrated, does she have to uphold any particular requirements of life (besides the obvious ones of virginity and chastity, of course)? The title of "Bride of Christ" is certainly not one to be taken lightly, so how does the consecrated virgin live out such a role in her daily life? I notice that you are yourself a consecrated virgin; perhaps you could, if you would be inclined, to respond with relation to your own self.
 

[BarbTherese]

I don't think that the intellectual level is the problem Barb. But for me there is appears to be a serious disconnect on a spiritual level that makes me feel uncomfortable. Catch you in another thread! :)

 

Intellectual discussion are fine to me - just not my level in Catholicism at all I don't think :)  Perhaps there are very important issues to be knotted out, I really wouldn't know. There is an important part to play in The Church for trained minds.  My personal understanding of CV is settled as the USACV website to date.

As The Church increasingly speaks to quite brilliant minds at times, She needs to have all the answers and She does perhaps at times not initially but over time and most often an unfolding matter as She listens to various minds.

I am just one of the 'foot troops'. :)

 

Cacha on the rounds, nunsense...........Barb :)

Late for Vespers and what's new in Bethany.  Vespers, then the big debate on TV and probably Compline around then or so.  Been trying to post this since before 6pm but keep getting "Driver Data Base Error" and loosing the post.  So now its copied into Word.

Edited August 11, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

To me, The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth, is THE Bride of Christ and each and every one of us has a part to play in witnessing to that totally amazing matter and by the lives that we live no matter where we happen to be living them online or not, nor on what theological or metaphysical or whateveritical we happen to be .......... mea maxima culpa.   We all share in that imagery of a body of people forming in quite a unique manner THE One Mystical Body of The Lord on earth (this is a truly amazing, stunning, amesome matter - it is a responsibility and accountability before The Divine Creator of The Universe! Three Persons, One God!) - we ALL have an important witness to make and it is Grace in one manner or another that both calls and endows one to give that particular and unique witness..........to me.

[BarbTherese]

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2349.htm

Catholic Catechism #2349 in part:

 

"There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church."

 

 

[BarbTherese]

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2349.htm

Catholic Catechism #2349 in part:

 

"There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church."

 

 

[Spem in alium]

Intellectual discussion are fine to me - just not my level in Catholicism at all I don't think :)  Perhaps there are very important issues to be knotted out, I really wouldn't know. There is an important part to play in The Church for trained minds.  My personal understanding of CV is settled as the USACV website to date.

As The Church increasingly speaks to quite brilliant minds at times, She needs to have all the answers and She does perhaps at times not initially but over time and most often an unfolding matter as She listens to various minds.

I am just one of the 'foot troops'. :)

 

Cacha on the rounds, nunsense...........Barb :)

Late for Vespers and what's new in Bethany.  Vespers, then the big debate on TV and probably Compline around then or so.  Been trying to post this since before 6pm but keep getting "Driver Data Base Error" and loosing the post.  So now its copied into Word.

 

Just a random question - what did you think of the debate?

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

Sponsa Christi, on the other hand, appears to be taking a different stance.  If I am reading her correctly, she is positing one of two possible theories.  One is that the supreme devotion of a woman towards Christ whom she considers as her husband or spouse is a grace that MAKES her TO BE a bride of Christ.  Nothing that the Church does or does not do has any bearing on this grace (so you can be under a private vow; no need for any religious or virginal consecrations) because it is independent of any strict tie to the consecrated state as the Church defines it.  In this view, it is more like a mystical union than it is an actual existing nuptial bond because it is given to any soul as God wills.  Only, in this case, Sponsa Christi restricts it to women for some unknown reason.

 

To clarify here:

 

I’m not saying that it’s only supreme devotion or a mere attraction which makes a woman a bride of Christ. The call to be a bride of Christ is a charism—i.e., a special mystical gift—which God gives to some women, and which I believe a woman has to accept through some kind of permanent, definitive commitment on her part.

 

A strong attraction to “bridal” imagery might be a one sign by which a woman discerns that she has in fact been given the charism to relate to Christ as a spouse, but I’m not saying that this attraction alone is the very thing that actually makes her a bride of Christ.

 

Technically, yes, I do think that the charism of being a bride of Christ is ultimately independent of any canonically-defined consecrated state in the Church. But this doesn’t mean that I think the Church’s intervention is unimportant or superfluous. I believe that the consecration of virgins, among other things, confirms this charism in a very profound and spiritually significant way.

 

My main point is that, while the Church lets us know for sure who is a bride of Christ, I don’t think the Church is therefore telling us who isn’t a bride of Christ.

 

To use a metaphor (which I know will break down in several places): Everyone in heaven is a saint. Some saints are canonized. But, this doesn’t mean that we can say that someone like Fulton Sheen is definitely NOT in heaven because he isn’t canonized, or that he is only going to go to heaven when the Church says he can. Yet, acknowledging that someone could be in heaven even without his being canonized is not the same thing as saying that the Church’s canonization process is meaningless or useless.

 

As to why I think that this mystical grace is granted only to women…I think it’s fair to say that being a “bride” is an intrinsically feminine reality, and having “bride” as one’s very identity is something which by its nature would only seem to make sense for a woman. (Plus, I don’t think we have any recorded instances of a male saint considering himself a “bride of Christ” in the special sense I indicated in the OP, nor do we have any Church documents referring to men specifically as “brides”…)

 

 

 

The other way you could read Sponsa Christi in the OP is that she is positing that what we call being a Bride of Christ is amorphous by nature.  In other words, you can't pin it down or define it because it is not definable, it is not able to be categorized, it is shapeless, limitless, a a cloud-like entity.  I personally think this interpretation is closer to Sponsa Christi's meaning because she rejects the idea that the consecration of religious or the consecration of virgins can cause an ontological change.  You see, if there is no "real" change of the religious or the virgin who receives a consecration from the Church, then a consecration cannot exist in reality (or be said to exist ontologically).  A consecration has to exist in order for it to make the CV a bride of Christ or the religious a follower of Christ.  But if a bride of Christ is un-defineable and shapeless, and close to a non-existent reality, then it is amorphous. 

 

I don’t think the call to be a bride of Christ is amorphous. That is, I do think it is a distinct—and very real!—reality. I just think it’s a reality which originates directly from God, rather than being primarily the consequence of an action by His Church.

 

I also think that the call to be a bride of Christ is a reality which can in some cases be discussed apart from the consecration of virgins—even though I don’t think the consecration of virgins is something which can be discussed apart from the call to be a bride of Christ. The two concepts are very deeply inter-related, but I don’t think they’re always necessarily identical.

 

I do believe that the consecration of virgins does effect a real change (right now I’m not 100% sure we can call it an ontological change, although generally I am open to arguments in favor of using this term). But, I don’t think this change is a matter of imparting a special spousal identity "out of the blue" where there absolutely was none before--although I do think this change entails a certain deepening of the call to be a “bride."

[Laurie]

Sponsa-Christ, I don't want to sidetrack your aim here and will leave this thread for those who want to pursue your line of thought. Also, my observations tie in with my past comments at "A Bride of Christ," so I've placed my comments/criticisms there.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-32#entry2615193