Consecration Of Virgins Ceremony And Evangelical Poverty?

[abrideofChrist]

wait, so you are saying that there is no need for the CV to have a propositum at all?

 

then why does the Rite even have that in there?

 

I am saying that for validity, only the unaltered prayer of consecration itself must be said over the virgin by her bishop.  For validity of the Mass, the essential words of consecration must be said over the bread and wine by the duly ordained priest.  For liciety, everything else that is prescribed by the laws and rubrics must be followed.  Omitting or changing these other parts can be gravely sinful but will not affect the validity of the Mass or of the Rite.  Think about it.  The Rite of Baptism is complex.  However, for validity, all that is necessary is that water is poured so there is a "washing" and the words pronounced "I baptize you.....".  If you are a priest and in a non emergency situation, it is seriously sinful to just say that one sentence because the Rite obliges the priest to lead all the other prayers and ceremonies involved.
 

[oremus1]

I am saying that for validity, only the unaltered prayer of consecration itself must be said over the virgin by her bishop.  For validity of the Mass, the essential words of consecration must be said over the bread and wine by the duly ordained priest.  For liciety, everything else that is prescribed by the laws and rubrics must be followed.  Omitting or changing these other parts can be gravely sinful but will not affect the validity of the Mass or of the Rite.  Think about it.  The Rite of Baptism is complex.  However, for validity, all that is necessary is that water is poured so there is a "washing" and the words pronounced "I baptize you.....".  If you are a priest and in a non emergency situation, it is seriously sinful to just say that one sentence because the Rite obliges the priest to lead all the other prayers and ceremonies involved.
 

 

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

[oremus1]

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

or even, 'consecration to a life of virginity lived in the world' for that matter

[abrideofChrist]

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

 

Yes.  Read number 1 of the Praenotandae called "The Nature and Force of the Consecration of Virgins".  More importantly, read Vita Consecrata for an understanding of the essence of what a consecration is for consecrated persons. 

[oremus1]

Yes.  Read number 1 of the Praenotandae called "The Nature and Force of the Consecration of Virgins".  More importantly, read Vita Consecrata for an understanding of the essence of what a consecration is for consecrated persons. 

 oh im sorry, for such an important point, i'd think it would have been helpful if the actual title of the Rite did not say otherwise.

 

this is an interesting point though, that the old Rite was indeed Rite of Consecration (and Blessing) of Virigns. but now it is Consecration to a life of virginity.....and you say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous

 

 

Edited January 27, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

or even, 'consecration to a life of virginity lived in the world' for that matter

 

This is like saying a religious is consecrated to a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, or that a priest is consecrated to ministry.  Nobody is denying that the religious or the priest is consecrated but we are adding in a casual manner how their consecration is different from other forms of consecration.

[oremus1]

This is like saying a religious is consecrated to a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, or that a priest is consecrated to ministry.  Nobody is denying that the religious or the priest is consecrated but we are adding in a casual manner how their consecration is different from other forms of consecration.

OK so how comes does canon 604 say "Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

 

if a) the approved rite does not matter, only part of it does (one prayer)

 

and

 

b) they do not need to make any pledge or resolve at all.

 

Also, if the Rite does not matter, why was this a big deal: http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/1133 - even within the parish

[abrideofChrist]

 oh im sorry, for such an important point, i'd think it would have been helpful if the actual title of the Rite did not say otherwise.

 

The title of the Rite says Ordo Consecrationis Virginum.  Or, in English, Order/Rite of the Consecration of Virgins.  Number 1 in the Praenotandae explains what the title says.  Have you read it?  It begins with "The custom of consecrating virgins..."

 

 

this is an interesting point though, that the old Rite was indeed Rite of Consecration (and Blessing) of Virigns. but now it is Consecration to a life of virginity.....and you say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous

 

No.  I didn't say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous.  I said that the verbal expression was not required for the validity of the consecration.  If you were in danger of death and your bishop was at your deathbed, it would suffice for validity that he pronounce the words of consecration over you for you to receive the grace of consecration.  Otherwise, the omission of the propositum (and the rest of the Rite) would be gravely matter.

[abrideofChrist]

OK so how comes does canon 604 say "Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

 

if a) the approved rite does not matter, only part of it does (one prayer)

 

and

 

b) they do not need to make any pledge or resolve at all.

 

Also, if the Rite does not matter, why was this a big deal: http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/1133 - even within the parish

 

You are misrepresenting my words. I never said the Rite wasn't important or that the virgin shouldn't pronounce the propositum.  I was highlighting that a consecration is not upon the propositum or vows but on the person. 

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

You are misrepresenting my words. I never said the Rite wasn't important or that the virgin shouldn't pronounce the propositum.  I was highlighting that a consecration is not upon the propositum or vows but on the person. 

 

 

no but you did effectively say that the Rite and propositum are unnecessary. so why are they there?

 

i'd find it hard to see how she can be mystically espoused to Christ without any desire to be, or any consent at all, if in theory, a bishop could consecrate a virgin without her knowledge or agreement at all.

[abrideofChrist]

no but you did effectively say that the Rite and propositum are unnecessary. so why are they there?

 

i'd find it hard to see how she can be mystically espoused to Christ without any desire to be, or any consent at all, if in theory, a bishop could consecrate a virgin without her knowledge or agreement at all.

 

I never did.  I made a distinction between liceity and validity.  I assumed you knew the difference.  Let me see if I can find a link for you.  A bishop is not going to spontaneously consecrate someone or ordain someone.

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

Just googled and this came up.  Scroll down to the section on liceity and validity:  http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/CanonLaw/Articles/CanonLaw101.aspx

[oremus1]

I never did.  I made a distinction between liceity and validity.  I assumed you knew the difference.  Let me see if I can find a link for you.  A bishop is not going to spontaneously consecrate someone or ordain someone.

 

 

No. And neither would a virgin seek the consecration without first having an intention!

 

Another question, do you think the vocation should be the preserve of advanced theologians who speak many languages, or do you think the ordinary person who left school at 15 and works in a gas station could be called to be a bride of Christ?

 

if you agree (as i do) that she could equally be called, then what would you consider sufficient knowledge?

 

or, as her propositum is not required, is it sufficient for her to just read the rite and just turn up?

Edited January 27, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

No. And neither would a virgin seek the consecration without first having an intention!

That's right. 
 

 

Another question, do you think the vocation should be the preserve of advanced theologians who speak many languages, or do you think the ordinary person who left school at 15 and works in a gas station could be called to be a bride of Christ?

 

if you agree (as i do) that she could equally be called, then what would you consider sufficient knowledge?

 

 

That she knows how to live a virtuous life.  That she knows the basics of the Faith.  That she knows how to live the life as explained by the entire Rite.  This life must be balanced.  She should know about the vocation to marriage and be able to draw the parallels between the vocations.  In short, she must have the age and prudence necessary to be what the Rite expects her to be: a responsible human being who is a bride of Christ.

 

or, as her propositum is not required, is it sufficient for her to just read the rite and just turn up?

 

Straw man.  I never said that.  I was explaining earlier to you that the bare minimum for the person to be consecrated is the imparting of the prayer of Consecration.  Number 4 of the Praenotandae stipulates certain requirements must be verified before a woman is admitted to the Order of Virgins.  One of them is that "by their age, prudence, and their unviersally appproved pattern of life"... they show that they are suitable for this vocation.  Number 5 of the Praenotandae requires that the bishop stipulate how the life is to be led.  This takes time to assess on the part of both the bishop and the virgin.  Of course, this is a moot point and a moot discussion because no bishop in his right senses is going to conduct an illicit consecration if she simply read the rite and showed up.  For all the bishop knew, she could be a prostitute.

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

Do me a favor please, since you continue to read my words as if I am lumping liceity with validity.  Once and for all, I am not saying that the Rite should not be followed. I said that for a woman to be a consecrated virgin (assuming all other conditions for validity are observed), it is sufficient for a bishop to pray the prayer of consecration over her.  However, such an act would be illicit and wrong.  Just as it suffices for a valid Mass that a priest says "This is My Body" over the correct bread and "This is My Blood" over approved wine.  It would be gravely illicit and wrong for him to omit the rest of the Mass leading up to the Consecration and after it, but it would be a valid Mass.