Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[MarysLittleFlower]

I found something that helped me understand this. It's a quote from St Thomas Aquinas:

 

"

Article IV.—Is virginity more excellent than marriage?

R. Divine good is better than human good: as well because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, as also because the good of the contemplative life is preferable to the good of the active. But virginity is ordained to the good of the soul in the contemplative life, which is to “think on the things of the Lord:” whereas marriage is ordained to the good of the body, the bodily multiplication of the human race, and belongs to the active life, because husband and wife, living in the married state, are under necessity to think of “the things of the world.”1 And therefore beyond doubt virginity is to be preferred to conjugal continence.

§ 2. Though virginity is better than conjugal continence, still it may be that a married person is better than a virgin for two reasons. First, in regard of chastity itself, if the married person is more ready at heart to keep his virginity, if it were proper for him to do so, than the person who is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine instructs a virgin to say: “I am not better than Abraham, but better is the chastity of the unmarried than the chastity of the married.” And he adds the explanation: “For what I do now, Abraham would have done better, if it had had to be done then; and what those saints of old did, that would I do now, if it were to be done.” Secondly, because perchance he who is not a virgin has some virtue more excellent than virginity. Hence Augustine says: “Whence does the virgin know, all solicitous as she be for the things that belong to the Lord, whether perchance through some weakness of purpose, unknown to herself, she be yet unripe for martyrdom, while that married woman, to whom she was forward to prefer herself, is already capable of drinking the chalice of the Lord’s Passion?”

Article V.—Is virginity the greatest of virtues?

R. When we call a thing most excellent, we may mean in one way that it is most excellent of its kind; and in that way virginity is most excellent of the kind of chastity: for it transcends the chastity both of the widowed and of the married state. And because beauty is eminently the attribute of chastity, therefore to virginity is attributed the most excellent beauty. Hence Ambrose says: “Who can conceive greater beauty than that of the virgin, who is loved by the King, approved by the Judge, dedicated to the Lord, consecrated to God?” In another way a thing is called most excellent absolutely; and in that way virginity is not the most excellent of virtues. For the end always excels the means to the end; and the more effectually a thing bears on the end, the better it is. But the end that renders virginity commendable is application to divine things. Hence the theological virtues, and even the virtue of religion, the act whereof is occupation with divine things, are preferred to virginity. Again, they put forth more energy in striving to adhere to God, who lay down their lives for that purpose, as the martyrs do; or who sacrifice their own will and all that they can have, as they do who live in monasteries, rather than virgins who sacrifice to this end sexual enjoyment.

§ 3. The virgins “follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth,”1 because they imitate Christ, not only in integrity of mind, but also in integrity of flesh; and therefore they follow the Lamb in more things than others do. Still it is not necessary that they should follow Him closer than others, because other virtues than virginity make a closer adherence to God by imitation of Him in the qualities of the mind. The “new canticle” that the virgins alone sing, is the joy that they have for having kept the integrity of their flesh.

 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1967&chapter=124319&layout=html&Itemid=27

 

So we can see here that certain states of life are more perfect than others, but this doesn't mean the person should see themselves as "superior".

 

I really hope this quote from St Thomas would help us all see that the topic here is NOT personal superiority or pride, but simply acknowledging the reality behind these states of life.

 

This is why I don't think this discussion is about superior/inferior... but just acknowledging that married people are concerned with more earthly things, and unmarried (consecrated) people devote all their time to heavenly things, as Scripture says. I think St Thomas makes it clear that this doesn't mean consecrated people should be proud; all is a gift. I also don't think it's a reason to look down upon marriage. It is what it is, and consecrated life is what it is.

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

It is not that Vatican II changed any Teaching of The Church, for it didn't.  What it did do was note our general Catholic consciousness or culture (in some aspects) and where we were right off centre - and set about bringing that into line with what The Church had always taught.  We were very excited as V2 got underway and what was coming out of it - it was all so new.  Later down the line, most of us realized that it was not new at all, rather it was new to our Catholic consciousness, our culture and way of thinking.  We were, in a sense, being targeted for being quite wrong on a number of aspects..........and an entirely happy event.

 

Take The Mass for example.  Very often quite devout Catholic people would pray The Rosary during Mass - something was taking place on the altar that did not really involve us in all it's aspects.  We only became very involved at the Consecration and at Holy Communion.  Partly, this was because hardly anyone had a missal with English translations of the Latin in a column alongside the Mass Prayers themselves (I still have my Latin/English missal).  Hence people did not know what was being prayed during Mass.  Even the Readings and Gospel were in Latin - often too, more often than not, Father's sermon or homily was not related to the Readings nor Gospel. Hence without a daily missal, one had no idea what was being read nor proclaimed in The Gospel.

 

In primary school we learnt traditional Latin hymns for example, but we were never taught what those hymns meant in English.  It was sufficient to be able to sing the Latin.  Emphasis was on pronunciation and getting the tune perfect.

There were probably many other problems evident to The Church which Vatican 2 set about trying to address and "make straight".  It was indeed a Pastoral Council of The Church.

 

Am I correct that you are referring to active participation? I found an article that might interest you :) http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp  it mentions active participation. It seems like there's sometimes a misunderstanding today about what active participation is... sometimes people interpret it as "doing things" in the Mass, like being a lector, etc. So people try to get involved as much as they can. But it seems active participation is really about prayer. It's a spiritual participation. To express that, people may "sing Gregorian chant" together as was mentioned in the article. I don't really know why the directives given in VII (mentioned  in the article) talked about keeping the Ordinary in Latin, using chant, etc, but today we don't see that at all... it seems like in the beginning there was one goal, and then eventually people began going further and further. But I just wanted to say, that it could be that active participation is based on prayer :) so I do think that it's good and important to know the prayers. I go to the Latin Mass whenever I can... and I have a missal.. the prayers are very beautiful. I don't really do anything visible in the Mass.. I just pray. I don't always use a missal but I think it's good to do so.

 

Anyways.. I think that maybe today we have the opposite thing and people trying to get involved as much as they can, but active participation is more about prayer it seems :) I'm just getting this impression from the articles I found on this topic, like the one above, and this one: http://praythemass.org/2012/06/participation-at-mass-active-passive-or-middle-voice/

 I had a rest this afternoon and fell asleep.  As I was waking up, I had this half dream half meditation, I don't know which really (not quite conscious).  The Blessed Eucharist was the centre of a diamond into the heart and centre of which (into Jesus and His Church)all the faithful baptized were drawn and United as One in The Blessed Eucharist yet retaining their unique identity.  On the outside and from differing angles, the intense light of the Heart of The Diamond (Jesus in The Blessed Eucharist) shone through all the baptised and sparkled outwards in an amazing variation of colour out into the world.  The different beautiful sparkles and amazing variation of colours struck me (once I came to full consciousness and reflected on 'the dream') as the different vocations and those who live them out in quite unique and personal ways.

 

I am not posting this as a theological declaration, merely as a personal observation/illustration/metaphor.

 

That is beautiful! :) of course, each vocation is necessary, and we are all united as one Church in Christ, in the Eucharist.

Dear MarysLittleFlower,

 

Baptism is an Initiation into the Church community. It means one is called to journey 'along with' the pilgrim Church . You've read Pre Vat II books  and been shaped by a medieval mindset / spirituality. This is what I've noted on other threads about  your discernment.

 

As someone who is very close to converts , I think such a focus on Pre-Vat II literature will be harmful rather than helpful in your integration in the Catholic community. Before you take any life decisions , I suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church in detail , to know where the Church is on its journey  in today's world.

 

Jesus Himself became one of us through the Incarnation and He was much much ahead of His times [ prophetic] . He still IS . All the baptized are called to be prophetic and ahead of the times , thus becoming role-models for the rest of the world.I personally think Pre-Vat II  or medieval sentimentality in the writings of saints and mystics [ which does contain a core of truth ] needs to be taken with the head on the shoulders.

 

My interpretation of the Vat II council is that it was a kind of 'Re-sourcement'   .........getting the Church in touch with its beginnings  in the Early Church  and thus deeply rooted , to give it an impetus to move forward in today's world. That's one of the reasons the rite of consecration of virgins which is the first form of consecrated life in history was revived by Vat II.

 

 

Praying for you,

 

GB

God's Beloved, I'm sorry I don't really understand what you mean.

 

The books that I have that are pre-VII, are lives of the Saints or books with revelations from Jesus, like about the Sacred Heart devotion. These are things that Jesus Himself told people who were very close to Him and open to His Truth. There's no reason at all to doubt them or to think that they are no longer true. I find that they only help me. Jesus' words are those that inspire me the most. If someone in the modern Church community disagrees with them, or if the modern view is different, I don't think that means that the revelations and writings of the Saints and mystics aren't true.

 

In addition, if we only accept what's post-VII... that's like saying that the Church was wrong and in error before VII. That doesn't make sense to me. If we think what is pre-VII... all the Saints, religious orders, spiritualities, etc - there's so much depth and beauty, and they're meant for us today too. The Church's traditions are meant for all.

 

Jesus did and does say things that challenge people. But the things He told St Margaret Mary or St Faustina are still true today. Revelation builds on itself.. it grows, without rejecting former revelations. I see a wonderful continuity in Jesus' messages, and there's a continuity in the Church in general - we shouldn't reject pre-VII spirituality, understanding, etc, because that is our basis. Our basis is ALL of Church Tradition, and though "small t" traditions may change over time, - the growth should be organic and not enforced, as Pope Benedict said. This means that what grows in the future, comes from the past, and doesn't reject the past like a revolution does, because the Church's tradition is not bad. The things that were rejected by reformers like St Francis of Assisi or St Teresa of Avila or St John of the Cross, were not good things from the Church, but things that went wrong, like people being too much into money or comfort. They never rejected things like the Sacred Heart devotion revelations, or other beautiful things that were given by Jesus. We can even see how over time, devotions like the Sacred Heart devotion, or the Holy Face devotion, kept growing, through the revelations to the different mystics. I'm not saying you're rejecting them... but I just don't really understand why you mentioned the Catholic pre-VII Saints and mystics, cause I see nothing but good in reading them. Anyways... we can see examples of 'organic growth' (like Pope Benedict talked about) in some areas, in Church history. And many things aren't supposed to change at all, and can't change, like dogma.. as for spirituality, mystical writings, etc, - if they're revelations from Jesus, - that's enough for me :)

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

God bless

[MarysLittleFlower]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread anymore because it actually makes me feel sick to my stomach, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not disagree with the Church's teaching - as she is the final authority. I did think that dogma related to articles of the faith and doctrine was more about things like this - but I am not a theologian nor am I interested in doctrinal debates so you have to forgive me for looking to Jesus for guidance rather than to what I thought were simply Church guidelines. Once upon a time there was a place called Limbo - this is gone now. So sometimes we poor ordinary Catholics get confused about things like what is dogma and what is doctrine and what is a guideline.

 

But I still don't see how any good can come of proclaiming the superiority of one state of life over another. Someone brought up the angels as an example - how they wouldn't be upset if Michael declared he was superior to the other angels. Really? Does anyone believe that St Michael is going to stand in front of all the other angels and remind them how he just happens to be objectively better than they are? So I suppose St Therese is standing up to her parents and saying, yeah you may be saints too, but I am objectively better than you because I am a Doctor of the Church are you aren't.

 

So why do humans feel a need to do this? Because we are fallen and full of pride. And that is why Jesus told the Apostles not to 'lord it over others'. And guess what? Even Catholics can love scripture - so the Protestant comment was really uncalled for.

 

I can see that to some people the whole concept of superiority is very important; we already have several threads in VS about how one state of life is so much better than another - but so far I haven't seen anything come out of all these threads but division and a lack of charity - so I wonder how that can be of God. Nothing is going to make me feel good about the way these 'objective truths' have been proclaimed nor do I see any point it proclaiming them here in VS and in the way they have been. I'm probably in the minority though. Pax Christi.

 

Nunsense, I agree with you about the need for humility and not trying to be superior to other. I guess I just feel like we're not talking about superiority... but about acknowledging the vocations for what they are. The quote above I gave by St Thomas Aquinas - he talks about what is special about virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, but He then talks about how a married person might be holier, so it's just talking about the state itself. It's not an attempt at superiority I think, because it's a Church teaching.

 

I do believe that everyone is loved by God, and that each vocation is needed... I just don't think it would be helpful to think of celibacy as something just like marriage, while even in Scripture, St Paul distinguishes them. Like he says, the unmarried are concerned only about God. I think that does show something special about the state. It doesn't mean that married people don't love God, or that He doesn't love them. And in Heaven, we would all be in union with God.

 

I don't know.. if what I've said has been unhelpful to people, then I apologize, perhaps it's a tricky topic or I didn't say it right. But I think St Thomas says it clearly :)

[BarbTherese]

Am I correct that you are referring to active participation? I found an article that might interest you http://www.ignatiusi...sv2_1_jan05.asp  it mentions active participation. It seems like there's sometimes a misunderstanding today about what active participation is... sometimes people interpret it as "doing things" in the Mass, like being a lector, etc. So people try to get involved as much as they can. But it seems active participation is really about prayer. It's a spiritual participation.  I agree that active participation is prayerful participation.  But pre Vatican II other than at The Consecration and at Holy Communion, generally speaking people were unaware of what was taking place on the altar and Father had his back to us.  Prayerful active participation to me means that we hear what Father is praying and understand where we are in The Mass and it’s meaning.  I once in college asked the nun who taught me a question about The Consecration.  What she allowed me to do was view The Mass in it’s entirety from the old turn opening where the nuns used to receive Holy Communion – that way I could see what Father was doing on the altar.  Until then, it had been a mystery to me. To express that, people may "sing Gregorian chant" together as was mentioned in the article. I don't really know why the directives given in VII (mentioned  in the article) talked about keeping the Ordinary in Latin, using chant, etc, but today we don't see that at all... it seems like in the beginning there was one goal, and then eventually people began going further and further. But I just wanted to say, that it could be that active participation is based on prayer so I do think that it's good and important to know the prayers. I go to the Latin Mass whenever I can... and I have a missal.. the prayers are very beautiful. I don't really do anything visible in the Mass.. I just pray. I don't always use a missal but I think it's good to do so.

I love The Mass in English, I really do because I know exactly what is being prayed through hearing, not through reading and trying to keep up.  But I also miss The Latin and Gregorian chant.  I would love to see small parts of The Mass back into Latin and some Gregorian Chant during Mass.  But on the personal level, if I had to choose, I would choose all in English for my benefit but for that of some others as well especially possibly non Catholics attending or Catholics who have not been well educted in The Faith.

 

Anyways.. I think that maybe today we have the opposite thing and people trying to get involved as much as they can, but active participation is more about prayer it seems I'm just getting this impression from the articles I found on this topic, like the one above, and this one: http://praythemass.o...r-middle-voice/  I think that active participation is about prayerful participation in The Mass itself and what Father is praying during The Mass, where we are in The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass.  Another way people can become involved is lector etc. etc. – but this remains partial participation, not a participating in The Mass from beginning to end and in a recollected manner.

Mary’s Little Flower 

The books that I have that are pre-VII, are lives of the Saints or books with revelations from Jesus, like about the Sacred Heart devotion. These are things that Jesus Himself told people who were very close to Him and open to His Truth. There's no reason at all to doubt them or to think that they are no longer true. I find that they only help me. Jesus' words are those that inspire me the most. If someone in the modern Church community disagrees with them, or if the modern view is different, I don't think that means that the revelations and writings of the Saints and mystics aren't true.

In addition, if we only accept what's post-VII... that's like saying that the Church was wrong and in error before VII. That doesn't make sense to me. If we think what is pre-VII... all the Saints, religious orders, spiritualities, etc - there's so much depth and beauty, and they're meant for us today too. The Church's traditions are meant for all.  I think this can be a wrongful understanding of Vatican II which was a Pastoral Council and, to quote another member, was to put us in touch with our roots pre V2.  We really were quite out of touch and on quite a few levels.  Our Catholic cultural consciousness had drifted into wayward thinking and it wasn’t only the laity either that were wayward in their thinking.  In fact, I was raised from childhood with Catholic cultural inaccurate thinking thinking it was Catholicism.  By the time I got to my early teens I was really confused about it all.

Jesus did and does say things that challenge people. But the things He told St Margaret Mary or St Faustina are still true today. Revelation builds on itself.. it grows, without rejecting former revelations. I see a wonderful continuity in Jesus' messages, and there's a continuity in the Church in general - we shouldn't reject pre-VII spirituality, understanding, etc, because that is our basis. Our basis is ALL of Church Tradition, and though "small t" traditions may change over time, - the growth should be organic and not enforced, as Pope Benedict said. This means that what grows in the future, comes from the past, and doesn't reject the past like a revolution does, because the Church's tradition is not bad. The things that were rejected by reformers like St Francis of Assisi or St Teresa of Avila or St John of the Cross, were not good things from the Church, but things that went wrong, And this is what Vatican II set out to address as well.  We were drifting further away from the Truth of The Church on quite a few levels in our Catholic cultural thought and no one was correcting things as things drifted even further.  Then V2 came along.  Many did leave The Church because they felt that their Catholic cultural thought was True Catholicism and V2 was against True Catholicism.  I know my Mum initially thought this way. like people being too much into money or comfort. They never rejected things like the Sacred Heart devotion revelations, or other beautiful things that were given by Jesus. We can even see how over time, devotions like the Sacred Heart devotion, or the Holy Face devotion, kept growing, through the revelations to the different mystics. I'm not saying you're rejecting them... but I just don't really understand why you mentioned the Catholic pre-VII Saints and mystics, cause I see nothing but good in reading them. Anyways... we can see examples of 'organic growth' (like Pope Benedict talked about) in some areas, in Church history. And many things aren't supposed to change at all, and can't change, like dogma.. as for spirituality, mystical writings, etc, - if they're revelations from Jesus, - that's enough for me

[BarbTherese]

What a appears in the quotation box below was originally quoted by Mary's Little Flower in Post #76 :

 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1967&chapter=124319&layout=html&Itemid=27

 

§ 3. The virgins “follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth,”1 because they imitate Christ, not only in integrity of mind, but also in integrity of flesh; and therefore they follow the Lamb in more things than others do. Still it is not necessary that they should follow Him closer than others, because other virtues than virginity make a closer adherence to God by imitation of Him in the qualities of the mind. The “new canticle” that the virgins alone sing, is the joy that they have for having kept the integrity of their flesh.

 

 

Interesting quote from Thomas Aquinas.

 

Mary's Little Flower:  " Like he says, the unmarried are concerned only about God. "

 

 

This is in an ideal sense.  I think probably most of us know religious who think of many things other than God and His Rights.  Because one is a religious or CV for example is no guarantee that one is living out the vocation to holiness.  We hope and pray so while realizing that reality can fall short of our hopes and prayers, our ideals. 

 

All too often or on a regular basis in religious life (I don't know much personal about CV's - I know one CV personally in passing only - and what she had to say was not exactly edifying either) when life meets the ideals and the way of life does not match up to the ideal, either the person leaves the life, or begins to compromise with it, and slowly falls short of religious life ideals.  Not always thank goodness, perhaps even I hope not frequently, but it can happen.

One could indeed embrace the vocation of the highest superiority, but then live it out in a quite mediocre sort of manner and even worse.  We have the shocking example of this in our priesthood in the various scandals.

 

Like he says, the unmarried are concerned only about God. I think that does show something special about the state. It doesn't mean that married people don't love God, or that He doesn't love them

 

 

I think we all realize that living in a holy/special state in life is absolutely not a guarantee of holiness.  Ideally it should be and I think probably all of us keep our priests and consecrated members in prayer.  I know plenty of married people who to me would qualify as holy.  In fact, to be honest, more married people than religious for example.  Plenty!  All the vocations present very high ideals, but this does remain rather 'pie in the sky as pigs fly' in real daily life as it were unless the persons living out these vocations are at once living out very the very high ideals of their vocation.  We all fall far short somewhere or other.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, to be honest I am not certain if I want to continue discussing pre-post-VII issues at this thread, simply because this is a topic that I spent much time trying to understand as a convert and later found 'my place' in the Latin Mass parish :) I think that today, many people are unaware of what the Mass is because of poor catechesis or a very casual approach to the topic (not blaming anyone in particular, just seems to be a general issue). Often just by looking at the Mass, I'm reminded of what the Mass is, and I like the Latin Mass because when I look at it, it's so clear. Regarding which way the priest is facing, the way I see it for the TLM, the priest is facing Our Lord and leading us in the prayers :) I don't find that unhelpful personally. Fr Z commented on this and apparently it's not forbidden in the Novus Ordo either: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-can-phrase-on-usccb-website-be-used-against-ad-orientem-worship/

 

Regarding VII, I don't really know what you mean by being out of touch before, I'm not saying that things were perfect and that nothing needed adjusting - but even though some things needed adjusting, I think what I said about continuity applies, and is not a wrong understanding, because this is what I read Pope Benedict said. He said there must be continuity. Here's a quote on that from Cardinal Burke:

 

"Cardinal Burke: What Pope Benedict XVI saw and experienced, also through those who came to him, who were very attached what we now call the Extraordinary Form - the Traditional Mass - was that in the reforms as they were introduced after the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding took place. Namely, this was that the reforms were undertaken with the idea there had been a rupture, that the way in which the Mass had been celebrated up until the time of the Council was somehow radically defective and there had to be what was really violent change, a reduction of the liturgical rites and even the language used, in every respect. So in order to restore the continuity, the Holy Father gave wide possibility for the celebration of the sacred rites as they were celebrated up until 1962, and then expressed the hope that through these two forms of the same rite – it’s all the same Roman rite, it can’t be different, it’s the same Mass, same Sacrament of Penance and so forth –there would be a mutual enrichment. And that continuity would be more perfectly expressed in what some have called the “reform of the reform”. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii

 

This points to the idea that it's not wrong to say that we shouldn't get rid of the past. Pope Benedict even hoped that the TLM would enrich the OF. Maybe there were small things that were going to be changed in the TLM, but sometimes really big changes happened.

 

I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right. When I first came into the Church, the liberal movements and things happening today were so confusing and I saw there's a crisis in our faith, and I see that as a Catholic teacher too. It was very difficult as a convert with this. I eventually found peace in a FSSP parish and reading books about spirituality and just living my life, going to Adoration, etc. I believe the Church's traditions are for everyone, so I'm trying to share them with others as well, if they are interested,  - for example I'd love to share them with my students. So many are not aware of them, but I'm glad to see them coming back more. :)

 

Maybe I don't understand what in specific you're referring to. Maybe you're talking about something specific. My experience of pre-VII books and liturgy has been entirely positive, and fitting to my spirituality, - I don't know anything about cultural thought, but this is not something that I read about, I just read things by the Saints and revelations to them :) I can't see what could be wrong with books like "Devotion to the Sacred Heart" by St Margaret Mary's spiritual director, or the "Golden Arrow" or "Way of Divine Love" or "Divine Mercy in My Soul". :) when I think of pre-VII, these are things that I think of, just because they were written before VII. I'm not talking about the cultural thought in the 50s and 60s and I don't know anything about it. I'm just talking about our traditions and spirituality based on the Saints and mystics and their revelations :) just that, not cultural things. With the Mass, I try to not approach it in any cultural way, but I try to read about how the Saints approached it, like St Padre Pio, and try to let that inform me. I think they had a beautiful and true understanding of it. I think we can also understand more about the Mass through catechesis and approaching it prayerfully. There were maybe people at all times who didn't understand what the Mass is if they weren't really taught about it, or for some other reasons.. the Saints can remind us..

 

I know that not everyone would agree with me on the Latin Mass, or like it as much, or have this spirituality... but it's my spirituality, and it's where I feel most at home. When people say that pre-VII things are unhelpful, like books or liturgy, - or that I should change, - I respond that Pope Benedict encouraged the Latin Mass. To be honest, the first time I went to the TLM, I cried because it's what I wanted the whole time I was preparing to be Catholic and going through my preparation. I like the Eastern liturgy too. I understand not everyone here shares my view, but I'd really rather not debate this further, because it's something very dear to me. I'll read any response to my post, but I'd rather not debate about it.

 

God bless :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

What a appears in the quotation box below was originally quoted by Mary's Little Flower in Post #76 :

 

Interesting quote from Thomas Aquinas.

 

 

This is in an ideal sense.  I think probably most of us know religious who think of many things other than God and His Rights.  Because one is a religious or CV for example is no guarantee that one is living out the vocation to holiness.  We hope and pray so while realizing that reality can fall short of our hopes and prayers, our ideals. 

 

All too often or on a regular basis in religious life (I don't know much personal about CV's - I know one CV personally in passing only - and what she had to say was not exactly edifying either) when life meets the ideals and the way of life does not match up to the ideal, either the person leaves the life, or begins to compromise with it, and slowly falls short of religious life ideals.  Not always thank goodness, perhaps even I hope not frequently, but it can happen.

One could indeed embrace the vocation of the highest superiority, but then live it out in a quite mediocre sort of manner and even worse.  We have the shocking example of this in our priesthood in the various scandals.

 

 

I think we all realize that living in a holy/special state in life is absolutely not a guarantee of holiness.  Ideally it should be and I think probably all of us keep our priests and consecrated members in prayer.  I know plenty of married people who to me would qualify as holy.  In fact, to be honest, more married people than religious for example.  Plenty!  All the vocations present very high ideals, but this does remain rather 'pie in the sky as pigs fly' in real daily life as it were unless the persons living out these vocations are at once living out very the very high ideals of their vocation.  We all fall far short somewhere or other.

 

Sure, I agree, which is why I'm trying to make it clear that this discussion is about the state of life itself   :)

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[BarbTherese]

Barbara, to be honest I am not certain if I want to continue discussing pre-post-VII issues at this thread, simply because this is a topic that I spent much time trying to understand as a convert and later found 'my place' in the Latin Mass parish :) This is fine, you don’t have to discuss it if you don’t wish to do so. 

 

 I think that today, many people are unaware of what the Mass is because of poor catechesis or a very casual approach to the topic (not blaming anyone in particular, just seems to be a general issue). Often just by looking at the Mass, I'm reminded of what the Mass is, and I like the Latin Mass because when I look at it, it's so clear. Regarding which way the priest is facing, the way I see it for the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest is facing Our Lord and leading us in the prayers :) I don't find that unhelpful personally. Fr Z commented on this and apparently it's not forbidden in the Novus Ordo either: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-can-phrase-on-usccb-website-be-used-against-ad-orientem-worship/

I have nothing whatsoever against the Latin Mass.  My preference is for the vernacular, but since Rome says we can have both, it’s fine.  I am just happy that people are happier with whatever form of the Mass makes them happy to be at Mass.  I would love personally to see a mixture of Latin and English, a bit of Gregorian chant.  Facing the altar or with Father’s back to the altar, it is still all The Mass.

Regarding VII, I don't really know what you mean by being out of touch before, I'm not saying that things were perfect and that nothing needed adjusting - but even though some things needed adjusting, I think what I said about continuity applies, and is not a wrong understanding, because this is what I read Pope Benedict said. He said there must be continuity. Here's a quote on that from Cardinal Burke: I am not contesting continuity – this is what Vatican II was all about – getting us in touch with our roots once more.

"Cardinal Burke: What Pope Benedict XVI saw and experienced, also through those who came to him, who were very attached what we now call the Extraordinary Form - the Traditional Mass - was that in the reforms as they were introduced after the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding took place. Namely, this was that the reforms were undertaken with the idea there had been a rupture, that the way in which the Mass had been celebrated up until the time of the Council was somehow radically defective and there had to be what was really violent change, a reduction of the liturgical rites and even the language used, in every respect. So in order to restore the continuity, the Holy Father gave wide possibility for the celebration of the sacred rites as they were celebrated up until 1962, and then expressed the hope that through these two forms of the same rite – it’s all the same Roman rite, it can’t be different, it’s the same Mass, same Sacrament of Penance and so forth –there would be a mutual enrichment. And that continuity would be more perfectly expressed in what some have called the “reform of the reform”. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii

This points to the idea that it's not wrong to say that we shouldn't get rid of the past. Pope Benedict even hoped that the Traditional Latin Mass would enrich the OF. Maybe there were small things that were going to be changed in the Traditional Latin Mass, but sometimes really big changes happened.

I am not saying at all to “get rid of the past” nor is Vatican II.

I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right.  Wow, if you had lived pre V2 you just might have a different attitude.  I could never understand why I saw religious in habit take a strap or a cane and strike another person and in real anger.  Never!  It did not gel with what I read in Scripture.  I could not understand why when I went to Sunday Mass without a hat because I couldn’t find mine, I was told I was going to Hell.  I couldn’t understand why I was told I should not talk to non Catholic children or neighbours because they were non Catholic, when Jesus mixed with prostitutes and sinners.  There were many ways we needed to get back into actual touch with what our Catholicism was all about, not by changing the past, but by going back to it and in the main to Scripture.

 

When I first came into the Church, the liberal movements and things happening today were so confusing and I saw there's a crisis in our faith, and I see that as a Catholic teacher too. It was very difficult as a convert with this. I eventually found peace in a FSSP parish and reading books about spirituality and just living my life, going to Adoration, etc. I believe the Church's traditions are for everyone, so I'm trying to share them with others as well, if they are interested,  - for example I'd love to share them with my students. So many are not aware of them, but I'm glad to see them coming back more. :)

I am very happy that you have found Peace.  We are still in post Council mode where discussion and debate takes place as to what The Council was all about.  But if you feel at rest not discussing V2 documents, that is fine.

Maybe I don't understand what in specific you're referring to. Maybe you're talking about something specific. My experience of pre-VII books and liturgy has been entirely positive, and fitting to my spirituality, - I don't know anything about cultural thought, but this is not something that I read about, I just read things by the Saints and revelations to them :) I can't see what could be wrong with books like "Devotion to the Sacred Heart" by St Margaret Mary's spiritual director, or the "Golden Arrow" or "Way of Divine Love" or "Divine Mercy in My Soul". :) Nothing at all wrong with them and I have not stated that there was, nor has V2.  I have had great devotion to The Sacred Heart since childhood and have a large ancient artwork of Him here in Bethany.  I am also a fan of St Faustina and got to know her when she was still frowned upon. It was a great day of celebration for me when she was finally canonized.  when I think of pre-VII, these are things that I think of, just because they were written before VII. I'm not talking about the cultural thought in the 50s and 60s and I don't know anything about it. I'm just talking about our traditions and spirituality based on the Saints and mystics and their revelations :) just that, not cultural things. With the Mass, I try to not approach it in any cultural way, but I try to read about how the Saints approached it, like St Padre Pio, and try to let that inform me. Beautiful! I think they had a beautiful and true understanding of it. I think we can also understand more about the Mass through catechesis and approaching it prayerfully. There were maybe people at all times who didn't understand what the Mass is if they weren't really taught about it, or for some other reasons.. the Saints can remind us.. Very true!

I know that not everyone would agree with me on the Latin Mass, or like it as much, or have this spirituality... but it's my spirituality, and it's where I feel most at home. When people say that pre-VII things are unhelpful, like books or liturgy, - or that I should change, - I respond that Pope Benedict encouraged the Latin Mass. I am not stating that pre V2 books and liturgy are unhelpful.  The Latin Mass was beautiful in its Majesty and I loved the Mass in Latin, shocked when it went into English.  But I have adjusted and prefer it now in English and probably I "hear" more through hearing than I do through reading.  Just the way I learn and we all have different ways of learning, of "hearing".  But this is just my preference.  We can choose nowadays and I have no problems whatsoever with those who choose the Traditional Latin Mass – none whatsoever.  I am just happy that people are able to find a form of The Mass which moves their hearts.  Mine is the Mass in English.  But then I could go to a Latin Mass and be very moved also.  It is The Mass.  To be honest, the first time I went to the Traditional Latin Mass, I cried because it's what I wanted the whole time I was preparing to be Catholic and going through my preparation. I like the Eastern liturgy too. I understand not everyone here shares my view, but I'd really rather not debate this further, because it's something very dear to me. I'll read any response to my post, but I'd rather not debate about it.

 

You’re fine. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't.  But I do thank you very much for sharing your thoughts..............Barb  :)

 

[BarbTherese]

Sure, I agree, which is why I'm trying to make it clear that this discussion is about the state of life itself   :)

 

...........and why this quote you gave from St Thomas Aquinas is very interesting:

 

"§ 3. The virgins “follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth,”1 because they imitate Christ, not only in integrity of mind, but also in integrity of flesh; and therefore they follow the Lamb in more things than others do. Still it is not necessary that they should follow Him closer than others, because other virtues than virginity make a closer adherence to God by imitation of Him in the qualities of the mind. The “new canticle” that the virgins alone sing, is the joy that they have for having kept the integrity of their flesh."

[BarbTherese]

 Double Post.

What came up on my computer was "Bad Gateway" and I thought it had not been posted.

Edited August 20, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[AccountDeleted]

Nunsense, I agree with you about the need for humility and not trying to be superior to other. I guess I just feel like we're not talking about superiority... but about acknowledging the vocations for what they are. The quote above I gave by St Thomas Aquinas - he talks about what is special about virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, but He then talks about how a married person might be holier, so it's just talking about the state itself. It's not an attempt at superiority I think, because it's a Church teaching.

 

 

 

Well, I disagree with you about the intent of this thread and several others on VS. They ARE talking about superiority. If not, why is it even necessary to keep posting so much about them? What is their purpose???

 

So answer me - do you think St Therese spent her time talking about how she was superior to others because she was a nun? When someone came to visit her who was married, do you think the first think she wanted to point out to them was how superior her celibacy was to their marriage??

 

Here in VS we have debates over whether nuns are even REAL Brides of Christ if they aren't CVs. How can any of this kind of comparison be useful to anyone?

 

Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in heaven - an objective reality - so do you know why he fell? Because he just couldn't get over it!  He thought his 'objective truth' made him superior to everyone else, especially humans and in his pride he just couldn't see that we ARE ALL DUST! Only God is great. So all of this posturing and declaiming these oh so vital objective truths that some people think need to be stated over and over again is just a lot of hot air. Instead of focusing on all of this comparison, we would be much better off proclaiming that we are all as nothing except for the love and the grace of God.

 

Not every nun or CV or priest - despite their objective superiority over all others - is going to make it into heaven. St Faustina even had a vision about all of the religious she saw in hell. So what does it matter their status on earth? I really and truly don't get the point of these superiority threads. Honestly! :shock:

[abrideofChrist]

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

[AccountDeleted]

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

 

 

I am sorry that you feel your vocation is worthless if it isn't superior to others. That is very sad.

[abrideofChrist]

I am sorry that you feel your vocation is worthless if it isn't superior to others. That is very sad.

 

You are mischaracterizing what I DID say.  QUIT IT. 

 

I did say this:

 

Ladies, I do not know where you are pulling the whole idea from that I or any other CV is saying that Consecrated Virginity makes a person superior (or a CV superior to a nun).  I NEVER said that.  What I DID say was that ALL CONSECRATIONS in the Consecrated Life are EQUAL.  That means that I was saying is that I did NOT and do NOT believe the Consecration of Virginity to be SUPERIOR to the Consecration of Religious.  If you are going to go full out and jump in on a thread that is lengthy to attack what I supposedly said, please do me the courtesy of carefully reading what it was that I DID say.  I have been very, very careful to make sure that I understood where people were coming from so as to not characterize what it was that they said.  That means that to be rigorously fair, I actually read the 400 or so pages of that dissertation that God's Beloved linked to earlier in this thread.  Why?  Because I wanted to make SURE we had common ground and that I had respectfully and carefully considered someone else's position!

 

What I WAS saying was NOT that CVs are superior, but that there is a vast difference between HOW and WHAT they consecrate.  Consecrated virginity specifically consecrates a woman as bride.  Religious consecration specifically consecrates a woman as a disciple following Jesus according to the evangelical counsels, etc.  A CVs vocation participates in the following of the evangelical counsels (all Christian vocations do!) but not in a VOWED manner and certainly not in the way the essence of religious life would require.  A nun's vocation participates in the bridal aspect of the Church/ CV vocation, but not in the consecrated manner (for if it were, then priest-monks would be Brides of Christ), nor in the same essential way that the bridal identity of CV's consists of.

 

I did give an analogy to Laurie that made her think of Aquinas's work on analogy, and I do think that what he says about it is valuable for understanding the nuances of this subject. 

 

The analogy I keep thinking of when I read the venom on this thread towards myself, is that it is analagous to the venom directed towards the Church for supposedly saying that gay people are going to hell.  The Church doesn't say that a gay person is going to hell, but that a person who sins  with full knowledge that homosexuality is seriously sinful will go to hell if they die unrepentant.  There's a huge difference, isn't there?  It's in the nuances of what the Church actually says vs. what some people want to say the Church says.  I do not think there would be such an uproar if people carefully read what it was that I actually said.  If this is too much work, then please, don't skip over what I said and just post an ad hominem because that doesn't really bring the conversation forward.

 

[abrideofChrist]

I am pasting a copy of my post on my thread, Nunsense that you should read carefully because I answer you with MY words.  This is post #469 on my thread http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2615229

 

It appears that a deep undercurrent of those who oppose this thread is the concern that by uncovering differences in consecrations, people can be made to feel inferior.  This has been said in a number of ways.  

For example, one person has copied and pasted things to make it appear as if everyone is equally part of the Bride of Christ and therefore no distinctions can or should be made.  The driving force behind this is the idea that if we say that someone is a bride of Christ by essence of vocation and that someone is NOT a bride of Christ by essence but by participation, somehow we are discriminating against the fundamental equality of the baptized.

Another person has said it is not Christian to say that there objectively superior states in life (339):

Quote

I simply cannot believe the tone of this whole thread - nor can I understand why it is even necessary. It seems to be trying to prove a point in order to make one group of people appear superior in some way to other groups of people. Is this even Christian?

 

Although I have stated multiple times that holiness is not dependent on one's state, I do not get the impression that people have read or understood what it was I was saying.  For this reason, I'm going to clarify my meaning with the Church's own teaching so that we can move on in this discussion in peace.

In the first place, the Church has what is known as the hierarchy.  The ordained priesthood is higher than the lay priesthood.  This is a fact, and the word "hierarchy" itself references the fact that the ordained priesthood is indeed higher than the lay priesthood.  What people don't appear to realize is that a devout married man can be more HOLY than a lousy priest.  Let me say this a different way.  The state of the priesthood is higher than the lay state OBJECTIVELY.  Subjectively, people's souls in the different states will be higher or lower according to their love of God.  

Let me also interject that the DIGNITY of each person as a human being, as a member of the Church is EQUAL in the eyes of God.  Their state in life may be, and their personal holiness is UNEQUAL.  

The Consecrated State is Unequal to the Lay State.  This is a matter of Dogma, not a matter of elitism:
 

Quote

32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.  (Sacra Virginitas)

 

Even within the Consecrated State, there are unequal forms of life which mirror the Church more or less closely:


 

Quote

The nuptial dimension belongs to the whole Church, but consecrated life is a vivid image of it, since it more clearly expresses the impulse towards the Bridegroom.(17)   In a still more significant and radical way, the mystery of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with the Lord is expressed in the vocation of cloistered nuns, precisely because their life is entirely dedicated to God, loved above all else, in a ceaseless straining towards the heavenly Jerusalem and in anticipation of the eschatological Church confirmed in the possession and contemplation of God. (18) Their life is a reminder to all Christian people of the fundamental vocation of everyone to come to God; (19) and it is a foreshadowing of the goal towards which the entire community of the Church journeys, (20) in order to live for ever as the Bride of the Lamb. (Verbi Sponsa)  [My Comment:  You can't have a "still more significant and radical way" unless you are comparing the rest of consecrated life forms to cloistered life.  Also, people reading this should realize that this was written after Sponsa Christi and therefore cloistered nuns did have CVs among their ranks]

 

Let me recap what was just said:

1)  All baptized are EQUAL in dignity as members of the Body of Christ.
2)  All baptized are UNEQUAL in the degree of charity or holiness they possess.  This holiness does not correspond to their state in life.
3)  All states of life are unequal and this is a matter of dogma.
4)  Within the consecrated state there are degrees of conformity to the image of the Church as Bride.


Given the above facts of life, I can conclude the following:

That the title of Bride of Christ can be given to those who share in the Church's identity and charism as Virgin, Bride, and Mother most perfectly and that saying this does not imply inequality of the dignity of the baptized.  It does imply inequality of the state of life, which is fine because the Church herself talks about this in relation to cloistered nuns.  (Should active sisters be offended and start attacking the Church because their way of life doesn't reflect the bridehood of the Church as well as the cloistered nuns?)  It does not imply any degree of holiness on the part of those who are conserated virgins relative to other baptized Catholics.