Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[oremus1]

I think it is a  bit of a stretch to say that the words "bridal insignia" imply anything about fabric choices. That is a little much.

 

on the one hand i think ABC is saying that bridal attire and bridal insignia are quite connected. on the other hand i can see that some ex-religious may wish to wear the habit as a sign of being only for the Lord ?/

 

Actually, the heading for the part of the Rite where the veil, ring, and breviary are given is titled: "Presentation of the Insignia of Consecration." (In the typical Latin edition, it's: "Insignium consecrationis traditio.")

 

the means in the praenotunda it says about preparing bridal insignia

[abrideofChrist]

Actually, the heading for the part of the Rite where the veil, ring, and breviary are given is titled: "Presentation of the Insignia of Consecration." (In the typical Latin edition, it's: "Insignium consecrationis traditio.")

 

If you have read Chapter I it says:  a) Pontificale Romanum; b) velamina, anuli aliave sponsalis consecrationis insignia, iuxta locorum praescripta aut probatas consuetudines, virginibus tradenda.
 

[abrideofChrist]

on the one hand i think ABC is saying that bridal attire and bridal insignia are quite connected. on the other hand i can see that some ex-religious may wish to wear the habit as a sign of being only for the Lord ?/

 

 

the means in the praenotunda it says about preparing bridal insignia

 

Remember that I said that the religious habit is NOT given in the Rite?  This is for two reasons.  1) Religous can only receive the consecration AFTER or DURING Final Profession, long after they have received the habit.  2)  A habit must be liturgically bestowed.  The Rite does not provide for it anywhere because it is not meant to be worn for women living in the world.  By permission, some ex-religious are allowed to continue wearing a habit, but the habit is NOT given to them at their consecration.  The habit is by definition, part of a "public witness" that religious (and to some extent, hermits) are by their profession AS religious.  The sign of being only for the Lord is the ring.  Just like a married woman's sign.

Edited February 8, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

Remember that I said that the religious habit is NOT given in the Rite?  This is for two reasons.  1) Religous can only receive the consecration AFTER or DURING Final Profession, long after they have received the habit.  2)  A habit must be liturgically bestowed.  The Rite does not provide for it anywhere because it is not meant to be worn for women living in the world.  By permission, some ex-religious are allowed to continue wearing a habit, but the habit is NOT given to them at their consecration.  The habit is by definition, part of a "public witness" that religious (and to some extent, hermits) are by their profession AS religious.  The sign of being only for the Lord is the ring.  Just like a married woman's sign.

 

no i mean in my country some women make their own 'habits' and wear them to their consecration like one would wear a wedding dress. others make their own poor garb which looks like a habit and wear that to their consecration.

 

also a foreign priest told me that he has heard of nuns wanting to reciebe the CV consecration having to have biological medical examinations. is this true?

 

and can anyone help me understand the reason Guillame Durand wanted to incorporate priestly ordination into the Rite>?

Edited February 8, 2014 by oremus1

[oremus1]

one more question: can anyone talk about obedience in the life of the CV? some say she makes an implicit vow of obedience to her bishop. but generally, it seems, the bishop does not require her to do anything. others say obedience is not relevent because she is living a nuptial charism, therefore it is irrelevent for her to talk about obedience which is proepr to religious and secular insitites only

[abrideofChrist]

one more question: can anyone talk about obedience in the life of the CV? some say she makes an implicit vow of obedience to her bishop. but generally, it seems, the bishop does not require her to do anything. others say obedience is not relevent because she is living a nuptial charism, therefore it is irrelevent for her to talk about obedience which is proepr to religious and secular insitites only

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2102 "A vow is a deliberate and free promise made to God concerning a possible and better good which must be fulfilled by reason of the virtue of religion,"21 A vow is an act of devotion in which the Christian dedicates himself to God or promises him some good work. By fulfilling his vows he renders to God what has been promised and consecrated to Him. the Acts of the Apostles shows us St. Paul concerned to fulfill the vows he had made.22

 

Where exactly in the Rite is there any vows mentioned of obedience?  There is no such thing as an implicit vow.  Either there is a vow or there is not.  The Church requires a verbal and often written vow as well as a lawful superior to receive a vow for a vow of obedience to be recognized as legally binding.  Since the Church has not designated the bishop as capable of lawfully receiving a vow of obedience from a CV, any such vow would be private and have nothing to do with the vocation of virginity since he is not her lawful superior by virtue of obedience.
 

[Sponsa-Christi]

If you have read Chapter I it says:  a) Pontificale Romanum; b) velamina, anuli aliave sponsalis consecrationis insignia, iuxta locorum praescripta aut probatas consuetudines, virginibus tradenda.
 

 

Even here, though, "insignia of bridal consecration" seems a bit different than just "bridal insignia." So it would seem that the Church sees the insignia as being more than just simply bridal, but rather as being also definite signs of a special consecration.

[Sponsa-Christi]

one more question: can anyone talk about obedience in the life of the CV? some say she makes an implicit vow of obedience to her bishop. but generally, it seems, the bishop does not require her to do anything. others say obedience is not relevent because she is living a nuptial charism, therefore it is irrelevent for her to talk about obedience which is proepr to religious and secular insitites only

 

I do think that consecrated virgins are called to live in a spirit of evangelical obedience, just as they are called to live in a spirit of poverty. Though naturally, this is going to be expressed in a different way than a religious vow of obedience properly so-called. 

 

My thought right now is that evangelical obedience for CVs should be expressed in terms of a sincere willingness to put the needs of the Church about your own personal desires and preferences, and also to a sincere docility towards the direction of your bishop (theoretically at least---obviously, this is a bit of a challenge if you have no real contact with the bishop!)

 

I don't think this willingness to listen to your bishop would necessarily be one-directional as a religious' obedience to his or her superior would be, but I believe that consecrated virgins should be willing to be guided by their bishops in a serious and meaningful way. I think this kind of relationship with the bishop is what is envisioned in the Rite and in the other pertinent documents.

[abrideofChrist]

I do think that consecrated virgins are called to live in a spirit of evangelical obedience, just as they are called to live in a spirit of poverty. Though naturally, this is going to be expressed in a different way than a religious vow of obedience properly so-called. 

 

My thought right now is that evangelical obedience for CVs should be expressed in terms of a sincere willingness to put the needs of the Church about your own personal desires and preferences, and also to a sincere docility towards the direction of your bishop (theoretically at least---obviously, this is a bit of a challenge if you have no real contact with the bishop!)

 

I don't think this willingness to listen to your bishop would necessarily be one-directional as a religious' obedience to his or her superior would be, but I believe that consecrated virgins should be willing to be guided by their bishops in a serious and meaningful way. I think this kind of relationship with the bishop is what is envisioned in the Rite and in the other pertinent documents.

 

You are free to live your life like this, but it is not how the Church describes the vocation of the CV.  Had the Church intended the virgin to have a quasi-religious obedience to her bishop, she would have made that very clear. Religious are obliged by their vow of obedience to do things they may not feel called to do.  This is part of what it means to be in a corporate charism and mission.  CVs are asked to cooperate with the bishop in ways that are compatible with their aptitudes and talents and their individual state (circumstances) of life.  This is why the Rite describes the different works of mercy as things CVs do.  CVs aren't required to do all of these works of mercy, they are a general guideline for fruitful service that will have to be individually determined and tailored to the needs of the CV in question.  All theologians without exception are agreed that a bishop has no right to demand any specific service to the Church (other than something like prayer or reasonable frequentation of the Sacraments) but that he can strongly suggest something. 

[abrideofChrist]

I don't think it is a bad idea for a CV to thoughtfuly consider any request the bishop may make.  But she has to know that she is under no moral obligation whatsoever to drop her job as a software engineer at a secular firm to become a social worker at Catholic Charities or work for a diocesan school as their IT department head.  What I see as a consistent pattern in your writing is the desire for the bishop to dictate to the CV how she must live her life.  Bishops expect their CVs to be well formed women who do not depend upon their bishops to make job decisions, apostolate decisions, friendship decisions, or other decisions for them in a parody of religious obedience.  The evangelical counsels are proposed to every Christian, not just to consecrated persons, and are lived differently according to the different vocations.  We are not permitted to make the burden of obedience harder than what is required by God, Church, and State.

[God's Beloved]

Actually, the heading for the part of the Rite where the veil, ring, and breviary are given is titled: "Presentation of the Insignia of Consecration." (In the typical Latin edition, it's: "Insignium consecrationis traditio.")

 

As I said earlier, the experts who revised the Rite in 1970 [post Vat II ] were themselves not familiar with the vocation. The revised Rite has depended a lot on the Rite that was used by Monastic religious for several centuries. Hence even the Latin text of the revised Rite could have Monastic nuances.

 

I read somewhere that Card.Burke was thinking aloud whether the absence of mandatory reception of the veil in the revised Rite for women living in the world , was due to the previous versions of the Rite used by Monastics -where they had two different ceremonies of Profession that included veiling  and Consecration as a virgin. The experts who revised the Rite must have referred to the latter which did not mention the veil and they made it optional in the Rite as it is now for women living in the world.

 

[However this does not mean that I personally am in favor of mandatory reception of the veil or its use regularly or occasionally in daily life.]

 

To understand and explicate the nuances in the Words that define the Charism today , I think we need to go to the origins of the vocation in history and not depend on church documents of the last century.

[God's Beloved]

Just wished to share how a Parsi [Zoroastrian ] would understand the concept of Identity -

I heard a sharing of a Parsi saying that they wear a white shirt and tie a rope around their waist 'inside' their clothing. A beautiful statement that their religious identity is not so much outside but 'inside' !

 

Something like this is also true I feel about the Identity of CV . The CV receives the identity of the church as virgin, bride,mother. It is impressed on her soul during the consecration. This identity will explicate itself , not by proclaiming to the church members or the world that I am a virgin , bride , mother --but by manifesting itself in my thought , word and deed. This is also a witness.

 

[ Again, I'm not saying this is my personal position , but it is worth reflecting upon].

[oremus1]

Even here, though, "insignia of bridal consecration" seems a bit different than just "bridal insignia." So it would seem that the Church sees the insignia as being more than just simply bridal, but rather as being also definite signs of a special consecration.

can you give some examples of things which are 'bridal insignia', without being 'insignia of bridal consecration' ? and doesnt it say something like veils, rings, and other insignia of bridal consecration ? so what does that mean? i always thought it was some cultural customs of marriage-like things, like in countries where all brides wear the crown of flowers.

 

You are free to live your life like this, but it is not how the Church describes the vocation of the CV.  Had the Church intended the virgin to have a quasi-religious obedience to her bishop, she would have made that very clear. Religious are obliged by their vow of obedience to do things they may not feel called to do.  This is part of what it means to be in a corporate charism and mission.  CVs are asked to cooperate with the bishop in ways that are compatible with their aptitudes and talents and their individual state (circumstances) of life.  This is why the Rite describes the different works of mercy as things CVs do.  CVs aren't required to do all of these works of mercy, they are a general guideline for fruitful service that will have to be individually determined and tailored to the needs of the CV in question.  All theologians without exception are agreed that a bishop has no right to demand any specific service to the Church (other than something like prayer or reasonable frequentation of the Sacraments) but that he can strongly suggest something. 

this is probably right - if you think about it, if the Rite enviaged the bishop the use the CV as an instrument to extend his own grace, they would not have needed to list all those things in the Rite. rather, it would be like the Bishops auxiliaries (precusor to CVs) where the bishop prescribes how they should like their life, their work etc as he requires .

 

As I said earlier, the experts who revised the Rite in 1970 [post Vat II ] were themselves not familiar with the vocation. The revised Rite has depended a lot on the Rite that was used by Monastic religious for several centuries. Hence even the Latin text of the revised Rite could have Monastic nuances.

 

I read somewhere that Card.Burke was thinking aloud whether the absence of mandatory reception of the veil in the revised Rite for women living in the world , was due to the previous versions of the Rite used by Monastics -where they had two different ceremonies of Profession that included veiling  and Consecration as a virgin. The experts who revised the Rite must have referred to the latter which did not mention the veil and they made it optional in the Rite as it is now for women living in the world.

 

[However this does not mean that I personally am in favor of mandatory reception of the veil or its use regularly or occasionally in daily life.]

 

Cardinal Burke talked about this in his 2008 address in Rome, he said it was clear that the veil was only optional in so far as nuns who had already recieved it canonically cannot recieve it again, and he referred to part of the Rite where it probibits the repeating of another part.

 

there are many women who choose not to recieve the veil - in my country the veil is almost never recieved. i cant understand why some women would NOT want to recieve it??

 

also why is the giving of the LOTH optional ? can it be substituted with a bible, or another version of the Office (i.e 1955 one, or Benedictine office if the CV is also a third order or oblate?

[God's Beloved]

The charism of cons.virgins is to be an eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and the life to come when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.

 

Canon 604 #1 mentions 'mystical espousal'

 

These days I'm reflecting on Mysticism. I think I read somewhere about the CV called to be a Transcendent Sign due to the Mystical espousal.

Would it mean a CV is called to be a locus of a transcendent experience of Union with God , beyond Space and Time ?

 

If yes, how can she be this effective Sign of a transcendent union  ?

 

[oremus1]

The charism of cons.virgins is to be an eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and the life to come when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom.

 

Canon 604 #1 mentions 'mystical espousal'

 

These days I'm reflecting on Mysticism. I think I read somewhere about the CV called to be a Transcendent Sign due to the Mystical espousal.

Would it mean a CV is called to be a locus of a transcendent experience of Union with God , beyond Space and Time ?

 

If yes, how can she be this effective Sign of a transcendent union  ?

 

 

You read this in the catechism: 923 "Virgins who, committed to the holy plan of following Christ more closely, are consecrated to God by the diocesan bishop according to the approved liturgical rite, are betrothed mystically to Christ, the Son of God, and are dedicated to the service of the Church."462 By this solemn rite (Consecratio virginum), the virgin is "constituted . . . a sacred person, a transcendent sign of the Church's love for Christ, and an eschatological image of this heavenly Bride of Christ and of the life to come

 

i think the 'mystical espousal' refers to as opposed to that which is physical (i.e. human/temporal marriage), and also because it arises from teh epiclesesis at prayer of consecration. the CCC says this 'constitutes' her as a transcendant sign, so she already IS a transcendant sign and does not need to do anything else in order to become that transcendant sign.