Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[abrideofChrist]

BarbaraTherese, would you mount a campaign against those who claim the priesthood is higher than non-priesthood?  Claim that being a non-cleric is inferior? Say that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable?

 

Also, do you realize that consecrated life began at the Annunciation and therefore with the bodily existence of Christ (it wasn't a development after Jesus' time)?

Edited August 21, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[cmaD2006]

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 think we are ALL missing the point ... and the last statement (where abrideofChrist -- you say "if .... then my vocation is worhtless") shows it.

 

Isn't the point to follow the vocation that will lead to one's sanctification?  If it is -- then by NO MEANS can any vocation be simply worthless.  If it is -- then you're missing the boat.

 

Regardless of the arguments, regardless of who is/isn't a Bride of Christ, the main point is to follow the Lord.  Where ever that leads.  And in following Christ, you are sanctified in whatever vocation you are called to.

 

People can say what they say with respect to how I am choosing to live my life.  Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face as far as which vocation "is the highest."

 

I choose to not care -- why?  Because for me, the highest vocation is the one I have chosen ... the one that I submitted to proper discernment, and spent the time in prayer deciding.

 

If it is so important to define "who is a bride of Christ" then I ask everyone to consider this -- when You are before the Lord, on the day of your death, what will happen?  Is He going to say "um, you got the whole 'Bride of Christ' thing wrong so, sorry, no entering the Kingdom for you" OR, is He going to say "How much did you love my little ones?"

 

Or worse -- "You were not a witness to my love towards others, and by your attitude you made my little ones go astray."

[MarysLittleFlower]

I don't think we should choose a vocation because we want to be considered the "highest" and it's the "highest" vocation... if a person truly chooses a vocation like consecrated life, they should choose it because they want to give their all to God, and they are called to doing this. In this case, they wouldn't really worry about it being "higher" but rather - is it God's will, and - is it a self gift done with love? since all vocations are a self gift done with love... if a person feels called to give everything to God as a religious, let's say, and leave everything and devote themselves only to God, - then they wouldn't truly feel peace until they have given their all, and they would be perhaps drawn to the vocation where they CAN do this. However, that would be based on love, not on pride or wanting to be "higher".

 

HOWEVER.....

 

The Church does have this teaching. And knowing the distinction can help the person see that in certain vocations, they'd be able to make this total gift only to God, not to a spouse on earth, so they'd be able to discern that. I think the benefit of knowing that certain states of life are higher is for the sake of understanding what they are and what they involve, and simply knowing the truth on them. For example, Jesus often calls religious and priests His "chosen souls"... what does this mean? does it mean that a person can proudly proclaim themselves to be chosen and look down on others? of course not! it would be so sad and wrong if we were to think that this is the ONLY way to look at these words, because these are words that Jesus uses Himself. If a consecrated person would read those words about their vocation..."chosen souls": they'd understand that they were chosen out of the world and  placed somewhere FOR something.... like for example, to offer reparation and consolation to Jesus for sin. They might have a better understanding of what Jesus expects of them.. that they're not there for themselves.. .and that they were chosen, rather than them doing the choosing: and that this choice was not based on them earning it, but was simply the will of God, for His own perhaps unknown reasons. There must be a reason why Jesus spoke to Saints about what it means - I can't claim to know the reason, but I'm totally confident it was a good one! we can criticize Our Lord for using these words or explanations...

 

Knowing what the Church teaches, what Jesus said, - doesn't mean that the person would discern a vocation because it is a higher state only, with a desire to be superior to everyone. If such a motive exists, it's good to ask God to purify it. But a person can know these things and be humble, because the pride is not found in the truth, it's found in us.

 

Yes the best vocation for me is the one that God wants for me. That would be my path to holiness. I can't rebel against God's will. But we're just talking about the states themselves.

Edited August 21, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese, would you mount a campaign against those who claim the priesthood is higher than non-priesthood?  Claim that being a non-cleric is inferior? Say that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable?

 

Also, do you realize that consecrated life began at the Annunciation and therefore with the bodily existence of Christ (it wasn't a development after Jesus' time)?

 

• I think BoC that you are stating that I am stating something that I haven't at all.  On an objective theological level, the priesthood is always higher than non priesthood. 
• I haven't claimed that being a non-cleric is inferior, although on an objective theological level it is.
• Nor stated that discussing the hierarchy is uncharitable
• Certainly, consecrated life as we know it did not come into existence during the earthly time of Jesus. It came later in our history.  What I stated was merely an historical comment and that the 7 Sacrament, marriage one of them, was instituted by Jesus Himself. Consecrated life is not a Sacrament.

It would be very helpful if in making comment, you could quote the text on which you are commenting.  It would help as I have no recollection of stating what you say I have stated.  The exact text of my comments would allow me to clear up any misconceptions as I certainly do not hold to the concepts that you are presenting as mine. 

[BarbTherese]

The seed of consecrated life may well have been planted at the Annunciation - I don't know what The Church has to say on this point.  If the seed was planted at the Annunciation it did not germinate until later in our history when The Church began to consecrate into a consecrated state of life as we now know it in The Church.  (Our Lady certainly was consecrated by The Holy Spirit to God at conception I would have thought- at the Annunciation, she receives her mission in life, Mother of God) I do believe that CV's might have been the first form of consecrated life as we know it in The Church - I haven't researched on this point. 

 

HISTORICAL TIMELINE FOR CONSECRATED LIFE

 

Father Hardon on History of Religious Life: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Religious_Life/Religious_Life_007.htm

 

[abrideofChrist]

Try this, Barbara Therese http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/ministry_resources/consecratedlife/files/1988%20Homily%20from%20Mass%20of%20the%20Consecration%20of%20a%20Virgin.pdf  Consecrated virginity began at the Annunciation.  It was the first vocation and continued throughout Church history.

[BarbTherese]

Try this, Barbara Therese http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/ministry_resources/consecratedlife/files/1988%20Homily%20from%20Mass%20of%20the%20Consecration%20of%20a%20Virgin.pdf  Consecrated virginity began at the Annunciation.  It was the first vocation and continued throughout Church history.

 

If a bishop states this, then it is good enough for me.  But I think you have misunderstood me.  I was talking about consecrated life as a canonical form of life and formal consecration by a bishop as we now know it which began after the time of Christ.  I was talking about a point of our history. While I can concur that the vocation itself probably did take seed, as your article states, at the Annunciation.  I can even concur that The Annunciation was the first recorded consecrated life in our Christian history.

 

I don't want to contest any points as I am out of my comfort zone where CV's are concerned.   The 7 Sacraments are recognized as instituted by Jesus.  Canonical consecration of virgins and into religious life and other forms of consecrated life  - as we now know it - came later in our history. Canonical consecration is not a Sacrament.

 

I really don't know how to state it BoC in order to not be misinterpreted once more. :)

[abrideofChrist]

Barbara, for quite some time there was no "canonical" marriage, even though it was a sacrament until the 12th century.  http://www.interchurchfamilies.org/resource/marriage/can-marr.shtm As a matter of fact, the requirements for marriage as we know it didn't happen until the Council of Trent. 

 

Tradition has it that St. Matthew the Apostle was one of the earliest consecrating bishops.  The magisterial documents state that consecrated virginity traces back to apostolic times and by the time the second and third centuries came along, it was well established.

[organwerke]

  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.

 

It is curious that you feel mortified by the fact that Others reject the idea that your vocation is deeper and of superior spousal nature because they feel mortified by the fact that you reject the idea that consecrated life is not a higher state in life than the non-consecrated life where they are in.

Sorry for my English and my twistled thought, but do you catch the point?

[abrideofChrist]

No, I don't Organwerke, I don't get the point.  I simply said that if John and Jane Doe were married and were told that their marriage was nothing different than the baptized people of God's marriage with Christ, they would feel that their vocation was pointless and worthless because it would be.  We recognize that in marriage, a bond is formed between the man and the woman that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  I am saying that for a CV, a true bond is formed between the CV and Christ that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  Otherwise, the CV's vocation is pointless and worthless OBJECTIVELY speaking.  If Christian marriage IS THE SAME AS GAY MARRIAGE, then Christian marriage is pointless and worthless.

 

Just because someone chooses to feel inferior although I repeatedly showed why they shouldn't isn't my problem. 

[abrideofChrist]

Oh, and incidentally, I don't think people on this phorum reject the idea that the consecrated state is objectively superior to the lay state.  That is a heretical position against a dogmatic teaching of the Church.

[organwerke]

No, I don't Organwerke, I don't get the point.  I simply said that if John and Jane Doe were married and were told that their marriage was nothing different than the baptized people of God's marriage with Christ, they would feel that their vocation was pointless and worthless because it would be.  We recognize that in marriage, a bond is formed between the man and the woman that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  I am saying that for a CV, a true bond is formed between the CV and Christ that is DIFFERENT than the spousal bond ALL Baptized people have with Christ.  Otherwise, the CV's vocation is pointless and worthless OBJECTIVELY speaking.  If Christian marriage IS THE SAME AS GAY MARRIAGE, then Christian marriage is pointless and worthless.

 

Just because someone chooses to feel inferior although I repeatedly showed why they shouldn't isn't my problem. 

 

In your post that I quoted you were the person who chosed to feel inferior and worthless because what another person said.

I simply applied your same logical thought to the way Others sometimes perceive your posts in order to make things clearer for you. But I evidently failed.

[abrideofChrist]

No, I have never said I feel inferior and worthless.  I said I could feel insulted that the vocation that the Church HERSELF has stated AUTHORITATIVELY to make me into a Bride of Christ is not recognized by (the self righteous) people who claim that there is no difference between my vocation and that of the baptized in general.  I then rhetorically referred to the fact that my vocation is objectively worthless because if there is no ontological difference between my vocation and the general state of the baptized, then this vocation the Church has defined is fake and nothing more than a waste of time.  You didn't use logical thought based on my true claims because I did post my thoughts on ontological changes, real spousal bonds, and the question of objectively superior states in different places but NEVER have I claimed that I felt inferior EVEN THOUGH I recognize the fact that I am not a cleric.

Edited August 21, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

We ALL have the obligation to promote ALL the Vocations in life and this would include the obligation of seeking a greater understanding of what they are.  We also have the duty to protect the different institutions the Church has established.  If I attack the Franciscan charism, Franciscans and the rest of the Church have the right to defend their charism.  If I attack marriage, all of us have the right to defend what true marriage is.  If I attack consecrated virginity, all have the right to defend its nature.  If I attack the priesthood, all have the right to defend it.  These are all public institutions in the Church established by God.  We have a right to defend the patrimony of our Faith.  It is part and parcel of our faith that a true bond is established between the validly married.  If someone denies this because they deny that an ontological change takes place in the spouses, then they are denying the reality of marriage.  It is also part and parcel of our faith that a true bond is established between the CV and Christ at her consecration of virginity.  It is part and parcel of our faith that some states are inherently superior to others.  This is a fact that none of us can change.  It is part and parcel of our faith that HOLINESS is not tied to the state of life but to the person's individual level of charity.  Being in an objectively superior state in life does not make one more holy.  Nor does repeating the Church's own claim that certain states are superior to others in itself an act of pride but a statement of fact. 

[organwerke]

No, I have never said I feel inferior and worthless.  I said I could feel insulted that the vocation that the Church HERSELF has stated AUTHORITATIVELY to make me into a Bride of Christ is not recognized by (the self righteous) people who claim that there is no difference between my vocation and that of the baptized in general.  I then rhetorically referred to the fact that my vocation is objectively worthless because if there is no ontological difference between my vocation and the general state of the baptized, then this vocation the Church has defined is fake and nothing more than a waste of time.  You didn't use logical thought based on my true claims because I did post my thoughts on ontological changes, real spousal bonds, and the question of objectively superior states in different places but NEVER have I claimed that I felt inferior EVEN THOUGH I recognize the fact that I am not a cleric.

 

Even if you often speak about "Church's authority", "Objective truth", "ontological difference", in my opinion the problem in this whole thread isn't about objectivity but it is problem of psicological nature, of "how people feel perceived and judged by others".

Let me say it is evident (at least to me) that all your posts here come from your feeling insulted and offended by the idea that some people  may refuse to give to your vocation the dignity it deserves. But the fact is that you feel judged no less than Others feel judged, and diminished, by you even if it is not your intention to judge.

The fact is that I understand your point of view. I recognize that you may feel attacked and diminished by people who refuse to recognize the dignity of the vocation of a Consecrated Virgin (but I think that this perception doesn't come from phatmass but from the world outside).

But the fact is that I think that no one here really refuses to recognize this dignity but you read this into the line, exactly as many read into the lines that they are judged inferior and less valuable because they don't live in a "higher" state of life.

And no, you can't simply say that if they feel inferior or offended this is not your problem, since you too pointed out to a specifical person here that you felt insulted and offended by what she wrote. This would be hypocritical. It is your problem if someone feels offended by what you say just as it is my problem if you feel offended by what I tell you or write.