Consecration Of Virgins Ceremony And Evangelical Poverty?

[oremus1]

Hi there!

 

I am, Deo volente, to tbe consecrated as a virgin living in the world and am starting to think about my consecration after three years of prep. Please do not post if you are not familiar with this vocation, as I do not wish this to turn into a 'why didn't you become a nun' thread.

 

In my country, however, bridal attire, nice music in the liturgy, flowers, even the insignia of the veil, are avoided due to evangelical poverty. it is mainly elderly religious ex-sisters, they just turn up at a side chapel in everyday clothes, trousers etc and are consecrated by a priest (yep you read that right) then go back to work.

 

but in the usa, it is a big deal, they wear bridal dresses, veils, the usacv has many people wearing special beautiful rings  (like a lamp shape custom one).

 

in my country they said it was not in keeping with the vocation, due to evangelical poverty and that America has a materialistic culture.

 

reading the history of the vocation, it seems it was a big deal and like a wedding. but if I do that in my country I feel like I am being an over romantic bridezilla. I am 28 btw.

 

i'd like a solemn liturgy in the cathedral, a bridal-style white dress (I am thinking of a Mormon temple dress as I have not much money and want long sleeves), and i'd like a ruby or garnet ring as I have a special devotion to the Precious Blood - this would be secondhand.

 

is this in keeping with evangelical poverty? we have priestly vestments which are rich and beautiful, frankincense in the liturgy which is very expensive, papal and episcopal gold rings. but then pope francis does not have most of those things and people believe it is good he is 'humble'.

 

which approach is right? did any CVs feel guilty or selfish spending money on their ring, dress or insignia?

 

 

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

First, congratulations on your upcoming consecration! 

Beauty and solemnity are not against evangelical poverty. In fact, I would say that for those of us consecrated to the Lord beauty is needed even more to remind us of the beauty of our Spouse and of heaven! It lifts us up. 

 

Simplicity is not the same as ugly! In fact, sometimes things that are very simple are actually very expensive! 

 

The Holy Father has chosen to "dress down" as we say in keeping with his way of being a shepherd. But he's not stripping the Vatican of the beautiful. He still uses all the beautiful candles, thuribles, etc. in St. Peter's. One COULD argue that it would be more in keeping with poverty just to use the vestments already in St. Peter's and made for popes rather than make new ones that look more simple. But, I doubt that the sisters who do the liturgical sewing would like that! They probably love sewing new vestments for the Holy Father. 

 

Becoming a consecrated virgin is a solemn and sacred act and "demands" a dignity and beauty. To me, what you describe is appropriate and not materialistic at all. BTW, I've not seen any Consecrations here in the US that seem materialistic. 

 

Perhaps you will be going against what the others are used to but maybe it is needed for future consecrated virgins. It may even attract others to this vocation! :-)

[Alberto Guimaraes]

Peace and Good!

To complete your poverty spirit go barefoot!

It was one of my private vows, when I joined Secular Franciscan Order.

Jesus, Mary and Francis bless you and keep you!

Br. Alberto Guimaraes OFS

Braga - Portugal

 

 

[Feankie]

I agree with Sister.  You will only be doing this ONE time!  One time for the Lord.  As my dear PCPA nuns remind me, nothing is too beautiful or too good for the Lord.  How do you feel in your heart of hearts? It sounds like you've thought about the ceremony quite a bit.  I've been to several liturgies where virgins have been consecrated, both here in the US and in Mexico.  At each one there was the bridal gown-ish dress, the veil, the candle/lamp, and the ring, along with at least one attendant. Incense was used as well as appropriate vestments for the priest that denoted the celebration.  Again I say, you're only going to do this once and you don't want to look back and say "What if I did....."  Just my 2 cents.

[oremus1]

First, congratulations on your upcoming consecration! 

Beauty and solemnity are not against evangelical poverty. In fact, I would say that for those of us consecrated to the Lord beauty is needed even more to remind us of the beauty of our Spouse and of heaven! It lifts us up. 

 

Simplicity is not the same as ugly! In fact, sometimes things that are very simple are actually very expensive! 

 

The Holy Father has chosen to "dress down" as we say in keeping with his way of being a shepherd. But he's not stripping the Vatican of the beautiful. He still uses all the beautiful candles, thuribles, etc. in St. Peter's. One COULD argue that it would be more in keeping with poverty just to use the vestments already in St. Peter's and made for popes rather than make new ones that look more simple. But, I doubt that the sisters who do the liturgical sewing would like that! They probably love sewing new vestments for the Holy Father. 

 

Becoming a consecrated virgin is a solemn and sacred act and "demands" a dignity and beauty. To me, what you describe is appropriate and not materialistic at all. BTW, I've not seen any Consecrations here in the US that seem materialistic. 

 

Perhaps you will be going against what the others are used to but maybe it is needed for future consecrated virgins. It may even attract others to this vocation! :-)

 

You are right, this is how i feel, the Lord accepted gifts of Gold and Frankincense and fine nard. but whenever i say this to the national co-ordinator, she says the Lord would rather have it sold and given to the poor. i offered to buy her a gold tabernacle (she has a wooden one in her 'chapel' which doubles up as a kitche/lounge) and she said she would sell it for the poor. she said the Lord was born in a manger and does not need finery, the finery should be in your heart.

 

I agree with Sister.  You will only be doing this ONE time!  One time for the Lord.  As my dear PCPA nuns remind me, nothing is too beautiful or too good for the Lord.  How do you feel in your heart of hearts? It sounds like you've thought about the ceremony quite a bit.  I've been to several liturgies where virgins have been consecrated, both here in the US and in Mexico.  At each one there was the bridal gown-ish dress, the veil, the candle/lamp, and the ring, along with at least one attendant. Incense was used as well as appropriate vestments for the priest that denoted the celebration.  Again I say, you're only going to do this once and you don't want to look back and say "What if I did....."  Just my 2 cents.

i know this is what i have seen too. thats what i woudl like. i very greatly love the Lord and I usually bring the finest largest flowers for feast days to our priestly chapel. but the Lord cares about who we are not what we wear. so why does the priest even need nice vestments? i would like it to be very solemn and sacred so everyone can be uplifted to the Lord. but our CVs will think that is a worthless vanity.

[OnlySunshine]

You are right, this is how i feel, the Lord accepted gifts of Gold and Frankincense and fine nard. but whenever i say this to the national co-ordinator, she says the Lord would rather have it sold and given to the poor. i offered to buy her a gold tabernacle (she has a wooden one in her 'chapel' which doubles up as a kitche/lounge) and she said she would sell it for the poor. she said the Lord was born in a manger and does not need finery, the finery should be in your heart.

 

i know this is what i have seen too. thats what i woudl like. i very greatly love the Lord and I usually bring the finest largest flowers for feast days to our priestly chapel. but the Lord cares about who we are not what we wear. so why does the priest even need nice vestments? i would like it to be very solemn and sacred so everyone can be uplifted to the Lord. but our CVs will think that is a worthless vanity.

 

Remind her that the Lord allowed a woman to break an alabaster jar of expensive perfume to anoint His feet and bathed his feet with her tears and hair.  When His apostles stated that she should have sold the jar and given the profit to the poor, He said:

 

“Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me.The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."

 

You will only be consecrated ONCE.  The poor will always be there.  There is no reason why this woman should make you feel guilty over wanting your Consecration to be symbolic and beautiful.

[Lilllabettt]

there is a person I can think of who wanted fine things sold "for the poor" rather than "wasted" on God -- Judas Iscariot. 

[maximillion]

Worthless vanity for the Ruler of All?

 

There is nothing in this world that is too good for the Lord, and He is Lord of ALL. It would be worthless vanity if this were to celebrate your birthday, perhaps ( though I doubt even that) However, to give my utmost for His Highest. I think your CV friends need to get over themselves a bit.

 

 

Consider the Lily of the field....consider all of creation its endless beauty and miriad styles and types...Our Creator made this for our pleasure and delight. Does He deign to spurn it when we offer it back for His Glory? I very much doubt it.

 

Be the most beautiful you can be and spread the joy of celebrating His call and your answer in the most outrageous way possible, for that very call is outrageous in the eyes of the world and He is The outrageous and ravishing  Lover of Your Soul. If a worldly bride can go to her bridals in finery, how much more you.

 

Oh, and no, I don't think He would have given the gifts of the Kings away to the poor, to say so misses the whole point of why those gifts were given. They were offered in recognition of His amazing Majesty. I am sure you can offer what you are able without guilt!

[oremus1]

Thanks so much everyone! I feel a bit better now.

 

Worthless vanity for the Ruler of All?

 

There is nothing in this world that is too good for the Lord, and He is Lord of ALL. It would be worthless vanity if this were to celebrate your birthday, perhaps ( though I doubt even that) However, to give my utmost for His Highest. I think your CV friends need to get over themselves a bit.

 

 

Consider the Lily of the field....consider all of creation its endless beauty and miriad styles and types...Our Creator made this for our pleasure and delight. Does He deign to spurn it when we offer it back for His Glory? I very much doubt it.

 

Be the most beautiful you can be and spread the joy of celebrating His call and your answer in the most outrageous way possible, for that very call is outrageous in the eyes of the world and He is The outrageous and ravishing  Lover of Your Soul. If a worldly bride can go to her bridals in finery, how much more you.

 

Oh, and no, I don't think He would have given the gifts of the Kings away to the poor, to say so misses the whole point of why those gifts were given. They were offered in recognition of His amazing Majesty. I am sure you can offer what you are able without guilt!

But can i ask, as the Lord does not care what i wear and indeed can see my soul, why should a bride of Christ wear a wedding dress or nice hair? why, for that matter, do we dress up for Sunday Mass?

And why do married people, to either  a human spouse or to the Lord often wear gold wedding bands? Or diamond engagement rings? this surely is not in keeping with evangelical poverty?

[Sr Mary Catharine OP]

Perhaps St. Francis de Sales has something to say about this. Look at yesterday's reading at Office of Readings. All Christians are called to live the counsels in some form so all christians are called to evangelical poverty but according to their state in life. A married person is not vowed to poverty and Jesus never criticized owning things. It was owning to the excess of greed. Virtue is moderation in all things. We actually have a right as human beings to own things. That is one reason why Communism is wrong.  Religious who make a solemn vow of poverty vow not just not to own anything but also the RIGHT to own anything. LIke the 1st Christians everything is own in common.

 

We must be careful not to be Cathars or Manicheans. We dress up for Mass and special occasions because God created us not just as spiritual beings but as human beings. We have bodies and through the consecration of our baptism they belong to God and must be treated with reverence. We dress with appropriate beauty and dignity because by doing so we are saying that the worship of the Divine Majesty is worth our showing reverence to God by clothing the body he has given us with dignity.

 

Of course God doesn't need gold tabernacles or beautiful vestments. WE NEED them to remind us of his Divine Majesty.

 

If your fiance gave you a gift carelessly wrapped in today's newspaper and not in appropriate wrapping wouldn't you think that possibly he doesn't think you are that important to him or that the gift he is giving you isn't very important? It would be giving a very odd message.

In the monastery we are careful to wear our cleanest habit every Sunday and Holy Day even though it's just "us" and we're not seen by the public. We do this to show honor and reverence to God and to the Holy Day.

 

Your consecration day will be once in your lifetime. You need to be strong and follow your heart.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Sr. Mary Catharine

[oremus1]

Perhaps St. Francis de Sales has something to say about this. Look at yesterday's reading at Office of Readings. All Christians are called to live the counsels in some form so all christians are called to evangelical poverty but according to their state in life. A married person is not vowed to poverty and Jesus never criticized owning things. It was owning to the excess of greed. Virtue is moderation in all things. We actually have a right as human beings to own things. That is one reason why Communism is wrong.  Religious who make a solemn vow of poverty vow not just not to own anything but also the RIGHT to own anything. LIke the 1st Christians everything is own in common.

 

We must be careful not to be Cathars or Manicheans. We dress up for Mass and special occasions because God created us not just as spiritual beings but as human beings. We have bodies and through the consecration of our baptism they belong to God and must be treated with reverence. We dress with appropriate beauty and dignity because by doing so we are saying that the worship of the Divine Majesty is worth our showing reverence to God by clothing the body he has given us with dignity.

 

Of course God doesn't need gold tabernacles or beautiful vestments. WE NEED them to remind us of his Divine Majesty.

 

If your fiance gave you a gift carelessly wrapped in today's newspaper and not in appropriate wrapping wouldn't you think that possibly he doesn't think you are that important to him or that the gift he is giving you isn't very important? It would be giving a very odd message.

In the monastery we are careful to wear our cleanest habit every Sunday and Holy Day even though it's just "us" and we're not seen by the public. We do this to show honor and reverence to God and to the Holy Day.

 

Your consecration day will be once in your lifetime. You need to be strong and follow your heart.

Thanks for explaining Sister! That makes so much more sense now. I do very much love the Lord! i wish everyone to see how much I love the Lord! and it isnt because of vanity, or a display of wealth, but beause i wish to show everyone how much i am rejoicing that i can be His Bride!

Thanks alot!! I will ignore all the other CVs in my country, and hopefully they will be edified .

[God's Beloved]

Hi there!

 

I am, Deo volente, to tbe consecrated as a virgin living in the world and am starting to think about my consecration after three years of prep. Please do not post if you are not familiar with this vocation, as I do not wish this to turn into a 'why didn't you become a nun' thread.

 

In my country, however, bridal attire, nice music in the liturgy, flowers, even the insignia of the veil, are avoided due to evangelical poverty. it is mainly elderly religious ex-sisters, they just turn up at a side chapel in everyday clothes, trousers etc and are consecrated by a priest (yep you read that right) then go back to work.

 

but in the usa, it is a big deal, they wear bridal dresses, veils, the usacv has many people wearing special beautiful rings  (like a lamp shape custom one).

 

in my country they said it was not in keeping with the vocation, due to evangelical poverty and that America has a materialistic culture.

 

reading the history of the vocation, it seems it was a big deal and like a wedding. but if I do that in my country I feel like I am being an over romantic bridezilla. I am 28 btw.

 

i'd like a solemn liturgy in the cathedral, a bridal-style white dress (I am thinking of a Mormon temple dress as I have not much money and want long sleeves), and i'd like a ruby or garnet ring as I have a special devotion to the Precious Blood - this would be secondhand.

 

is this in keeping with evangelical poverty? we have priestly vestments which are rich and beautiful, frankincense in the liturgy which is very expensive, papal and episcopal gold rings. but then pope francis does not have most of those things and people believe it is good he is 'humble'.

 

which approach is right? did any CVs feel guilty or selfish spending money on their ring, dress or insignia?

 

Dear Oremus1,

 

The consecration of virgins according to canon law 604 and tradition of 2 Millennia  requires that the Diocesan bishop should confer the consecration or delegate it to another bishop. It  CANNOT be delegated to a simple priest otherwise the consecration is INVALID. The Church has formally clarified on this point.

 

The ancient rite or ceremony of consecration of virgins is not " like" a wedding , but it " IS" a wedding of the virgin with Jesus Christ , the Son of God . This is mentioned very clearly in Canon law 604. There is an indissoluble Spousal bond with Christ due to the consecration and it cannot be dispensed.

 

I thought it is very important for you to know this before you go ahead with the ceremony.

 

Regarding evangelical poverty , my personal opinion is that you need to respect your local culture , standard of living of the people /church you represent , respect the dignity of the occasion and strike a balance. The Rite is considered to be one of the most beautiful ceremonies in the liturgy of the church and it is the intention of the church that the virgin becomes an Image of the Church's spousal love for Christ.  It will be fitting for a virgin to dress at least as well as an average woman entering sacramental marriage in the local church. There are some instances where the virgin wore very simple clothing for her consecration, but in daily life her clothes were very expensive. I don't think that respects the dignity of Jesus Christ.

 

 

I feel happy for you and shall keep you in my prayers , but please do take the points mentioned seriously otherwise the ceremony would be invalid.

 

GB

[oremus1]

Dear Oremus1,

 

The consecration of virgins according to canon law 604 and tradition of 2 Millennia  requires that the Diocesan bishop should confer the consecration or delegate it to another bishop. It  CANNOT be delegated to a simple priest otherwise the consecration is INVALID. The Church has formally clarified on this point.

 

The ancient rite or ceremony of consecration of virgins is not " like" a wedding , but it " IS" a wedding of the virgin with Jesus Christ , the Son of God . This is mentioned very clearly in Canon law 604. There is an indissoluble Spousal bond with Christ due to the consecration and it cannot be dispensed.

 

I thought it is very important for you to know this before you go ahead with the ceremony.

 

Regarding evangelical poverty , my personal opinion is that you need to respect your local culture , standard of living of the people /church you represent , respect the dignity of the occasion and strike a balance. The Rite is considered to be one of the most beautiful ceremonies in the liturgy of the church and it is the intention of the church that the virgin becomes an Image of the Church's spousal love for Christ.  It will be fitting for a virgin to dress at least as well as an average woman entering sacramental marriage in the local church. There are some instances where the virgin wore very simple clothing for her consecration, but in daily life her clothes were very expensive. I don't think that respects the dignity of Jesus Christ.

 

 

I feel happy for you and shall keep you in my prayers , but please do take the points mentioned seriously otherwise the ceremony would be invalid.

 

GB

Thank you so much for you kindness! i have read Cardinal Burke's response to the Holy See on that matter and have also checked with the USACV - it is valid if the consecration has been formally delegated by the bishop to a priest - a priest cannot consecrate the virgin of his own choosing otherwise THAT would be invalid. however in both cases, the consecration has not rightly been respected. and ours is not normally in a cathedral but in a local parish.

In my country we have many things which are not correct. we have women who are not virgins being consecrated under 'spiritual virginity'; amending the rite where it says 'virginity' replacing with 'celibacy'; consecrated widows; almost no-one has ever recieved the veil (insignia);  permission being granted by bishops to dispense women of their CV 'vows'; even anglican women seeking to be consecrated in the catholic church. I do not want to get into trouble so i am not saying which country it is. I am lucky as i am in touch with the USACV and know this to be incorrect.
 

Thank you for your prayers!


 

Edited January 25, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

Thank you so much for you kindness! i have read Cardinal Burke's response to the Holy See on that matter and have also checked with the USACV - it is valid if the consecration has been formally delegated by the bishop to a priest - a priest cannot consecrate the virgin of his own choosing otherwise THAT would be invalid. however in both cases, the consecration has not rightly been respected. and ours is not normally in a cathedral but in a local parish.

 

 

Can you point out where exactly Cardinal Burke says that a consecration done by a priest would be valid?  Until 2008, he may have thought this, but then he got word that a virgin who had been through the Rite under a priest was getting her consecration sanated per instructions of the Holy See (he said this publicly and it is written publicly in the information packet under his talk to the 2008 Convocation in Rome).  I do not know if the woman he received word about is the same as the one I am thinking about, but she had to go through the ceremony again with a bishop.  At the time he wrote, he had not confirmed that the sanation (making an invalid consecration valid) was really being required, but that is the latest I have heard.

In my country we have many things which are not correct. we have women who are not virgins being consecrated under 'spiritual virginity'; amending the rite where it says 'virginity' replacing with 'celibacy'; consecrated widows; almost no-one has ever recieved the veil (insignia);  permission being granted by bishops to dispense women of their CV 'vows'; even anglican women seeking to be consecrated in the catholic church. I do not want to get into trouble so i am not saying which country it is. I am lucky as i am in touch with the USACV and know this to be incorrect.

 

 

This is precisely why the rubrics of the Rite should be followed.  Many bishops are under the false impression that this is a private vow ceremony.  You CAN tinker with private vow ceremonies and dispense people from private vows as a bishop.  Religious vicars for consecrated life are often the worst influencers when it comes to bishops because they think in terms of religious life.  Since the virgin makes no vows, vicars assume that it is a private vow ceremony.  Religious are supposed to have their professions in their own communities and not in the cathedral.  This is one reason they resist the virgin having it at the cathedral.  They don't understand that the cathedral is the proper place for the consecration.

 

Thank you for your prayers!


 

 

[oremus1]

 

 

This is part of the source which you will find in the USACV info packet. I am not even american and I know your resources  better than you guys! Also I checked with the USACV and they reiterated the below.




Rome 2008 International Congress-Pilgrimage of Consecrated Virgins

Rome, Italy

May 16, 2008

LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI

THE RITE OF CONSECRATION AND

THE VOCATION OF CONSECRATED VIRGINITY LIVED IN THE WORLD

20

 

. What about the validity of the consecration imparted by a priest or bishop other than the Diocesan Bishop? I have learned only today of an official response from the Holy See, indicating that the consecration is not validly imparted by a priest and that, in the case of a virgin who was consecrated by a priest, the situation must be sanated by the private imparting of the consecration by the Diocesan Bishop. I do not have in hand the response and, therefore, cannot comment further. I do not believe that there has been any other official response to the question. It would seem to me that the consecration carried out by a priest or auxiliary Bishop, at the explicit direction of the Diocesan Bishop, is validly imparted, even though the full sign of the consecration by the Diocesan Bishop is not rightly respected. In other words, in the case of the consecration imparted by a priest or auxiliary Bishop, at the direction of the Diocesan Bishop, it seems clear that the Church intended to consecrate the virgin.