Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[oremus1]

If a woman has sex and lies about it, that's her deal. But the difference is she actually had sex, not watched a rom-com and did the Tango.

No lillabeth was defining loss of virginity, and I was making the point that oral and lesbian relations are a form of sex but do not come into her definition.

[Cecilia]

abrideofChrist, What you have said about the notion of implicit vows  being nonsensical – signifies greatly. <<Implicit>> means something is not explicit – or not plainly expressed. A vow is the opposite – explicit – plainly and publicly expressed. It is impossible to have a plainly – and publicly – expressed vow that is not plainly and publicly expressed. This is absurd. If it is not those things – it is not a vow. A woman cannot be consecrated by an implicit vow -- this does not exist.

 

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

 

sponsaChristi, I do not see why you are upset – probably readers know we are commenting here to understand each other – readers will come to conclusions on their own. Probably you will want to answer some questions I asked – to comment with answers will help us to see your positions better. This will aid understanding – if you are concerned what people will think. I tried to help you – to show you it seemed you do not want to consider the Catechism – or other documents from the Church – if they do not fit with your thinking. If readers have this impression from you – this is not good – however you can comment here to explain better. That is the point. If you did not understand how you come across – it would not be good to let you go on unaware – you can spend time here to make your thoughts known.

 

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

 

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

 

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

[Cecilia]

To me it seems quite strange -- to comment about obedience -- yet to not follow documents from the Magisterium of the Church. A consecrated virgin in the world -- this woman must respectfully and humbly submit to the Church's teachings -- to educate herself where needed -- to learn and have openness to being corrected.

 

This signifies greatly -- it is good to be obedient first when it is required -- with the Church's teachings -- before deciding on other items for obedience -- to a bishop -- that are more like a religious sister than a consecrated virgin in the world. Probably it is better to put levels of obedience in good order -- to follow real matters before hypothesized ones.

[PhuturePriest]

To me it seems quite strange -- to comment about obedience -- yet to not follow documents from the Magisterium of the Church. A consecrated virgin in the world -- this woman must respectfully and humbly submit to the Church's teachings -- to educate herself where needed -- to learn and have openness to being corrected.

 

This signifies greatly -- it is good to be obedient first when it is required -- with the Church's teachings -- before deciding on other items for obedience -- to a bishop -- that are more like a religious sister than a consecrated virgin in the world. Probably it is better to put levels of obedience in good order -- to follow real matters before hypothesized ones.

 

Is what supposedly constitutes as a loss of virginity a matter of dogma?

[Cecilia]

futurepriest387, My comment is about obedience -- whether a consecrated virgin in the world should ask her bishop to guide her -- more like a superior in a religious order -- this is not  part of Chruch teaching. A bishop -- and a consecrated virgin in the world -- have a special rapport. The relationship is special -- however it does not take religious life as a pattern. The bishop does not have time -- or an obligation -- to direct the consecrated virgin in the world -- about what to wear, how to work, what ministry to have -- he will have opinions on her options -- but she does not have a vow of obedience to him -- he does not give her structure and payment and housing -- that is religious life. It is strange -- to not carefully read the Church's Magisterial documents or the Catechism on the vocation -- this is true obedience -- yet to decide other things about obedience that do not signify -- that a bishop should take a role the Church does not give him. This is strange.

 

 

[Maggyie]

abrideofChrist, What you have said about the notion of implicit vows being nonsensical – signifies greatly. <<Implicit>> means something is not explicit – or not plainly expressed. A vow is the opposite – explicit – plainly and publicly expressed. It is impossible to have a plainly – and publicly – expressed vow that is not plainly and publicly expressed. This is absurd. If it is not those things – it is not a vow. A woman cannot be consecrated by an implicit vow -- this does not exist.

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

sponsaChristi, I do not see why you are upset – probably readers know we are commenting here to understand each other – readers will come to conclusions on their own. Probably you will want to answer some questions I asked – to comment with answers will help us to see your positions better. This will aid understanding – if you are concerned what people will think. I tried to help you – to show you it seemed you do not want to consider the Catechism – or other documents from the Church – if they do not fit with your thinking. If readers have this impression from you – this is not good – however you can comment here to explain better. That is the point. If you did not understand how you come across – it would not be good to let you go on unaware – you can spend time here to make your thoughts known.

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

Just to address one part, though I don't want to go OT, the practice of priests marrying those who cohabitate is an excellent one and in fact a priest has no place denying the faithful their rights to this sacrament on that score. It's a Fundmentalist Protestant thing to try to punish people who sin in this way by denying them the medicine for their sin (which is holy matrimony).

[oremus1]

abrideofChrist, sponsaChristi, oremus1, I do not see a difficulty – I understand the comments Aloysius made. If sponsaChristi is a student – not a canon lawyer – probably this should be corrected – as sponsaChristi has commented – that her positions may influence the lives of others – so they should know if she is a canon lawyer or a student. This makes sense.

 

 

Lilllabettt, I see why you mention losing virginity and another person – this signifies – however a public reputation for chastity matters too.

 

Oremus1, God’s beloved, We cannot understand the vocation without Church documents – think of marriage – priests may marry couples who cohabitate. This may be common – probably in many countries – however it does not respect matrimony. Bad habits by priests – or by bishops – do not mean we can ignore what the Church teaches.

 

Aloysius, You can change the topic of this thread – to consecrated virgins in the wild – as someone commented. 50 words does not apply anymore – an old standard – that did not fit once the debate table was explained.

 

myself and Godbeloved are not saying it is right that our countries disregard church teaching, we are just trying to find out WHY and WHAT IS THE CORRECT teaching
 

Is what supposedly constitutes as a loss of virginity a matter of dogma?

 

My point too. I want to know what the 'theological definition' of virginity is, and the meaning of "living in a public or open violation of chastity". i really dont think it means watching MTV or hugging.

futurepriest387, My comment is about obedience -- whether a consecrated virgin in the world should ask her bishop to guide her -- more like a superior in a religious order -- this is not  part of Chruch teaching. A bishop -- and a consecrated virgin in the world -- have a special rapport. The relationship is special -- however it does not take religious life as a pattern. The bishop does not have time -- or an obligation -- to direct the consecrated virgin in the world -- about what to wear, how to work, what ministry to have -- he will have opinions on her options -- but she does not have a vow of obedience to him -- he does not give her structure and payment and housing -- that is religious life. It is strange -- to not carefully read the Church's Magisterial documents or the Catechism on the vocation -- this is true obedience -- yet to decide other things about obedience that do not signify -- that a bishop should take a role the Church does not give him. This is strange.

It is strange that you should make such a comment without directing it to the person to whom you are responding. if you are not responding to any post on this threat, it is a strange comment to make. no-one is saying a bishop should like a religious superior. however i am interested to know what happens at the meetings between the CV and the bishop beause in my country we do not have any thing like that after consecration.what sort of things do you talk about? and yes, my question is rooted in church teaching. ever heard of apostolorum successores?

[Cecilia]

Maggie, Thank you. It is improper -- for a priest to refuse the sacrament of marriage -- as a <<punishment>> for behavior he does not approve of -- however it is appropriate for him to refuse the sacrament to couples who refuse to accept the Church's teachings on marriage. The priest may refuse to marry a couple -- for many reasons -- if they refuse to be open to having children -- refuse to agree to be monogamous in their marriage -- refuse to acknowledge the santicty of sex. A couple who lives together -- and seeks marriage in the Church -- is catechized -- receives confession -- lives like brother & sister in same household that is already established -- until marriage. This is fine. The sacraments do not come out of vending machines -- they are not open to anyone who wants them. A Catholic cannot say -- I must have this because I want it. A Catholic has to demonstrate belief in the Church -- adherence to her teachings.

[Cecilia]

Thank you, oremus1. Yes, in pages back, comments like this were made by someone about a consecrated virgin having obligations in obedience to her bishop. I do not believe it was you. It is difficult -- to read so many pages at once -- and to keep track. This is why I did not put a name on it. I did not want to make a mistake -- to address someone who did not make it. I made a general comment -- instead. Yet I addressed futurepriest because he addressed me before that.

 

When you comment about you and God's beloved -- and your countries -- I see. I thought you both commented that you are not looking at the Church's teachings. Later I will try to find the page -- my eyes become tired. Possibly I misread.

[Cecilia]

I was seeing page 9:

 

God's beloved, "Putting all the facts together , I think CV researchers should not depend on church documents to understand the vocation."

 

oremus1, "I also agree with the person who posted that we cannot depend on current documents to understand the vocation. we must look to the history, IN DETAIL. there we can find things like."

 

History signfies -- however if a current Church document gives details that go against a historical custom -- in the vocation -- the Church document is what signifies more. In early Church history it is difficult to know the difference -- between the propositum and what are vows today -- monastic and relgious vocations grew out of the consecrated virgins. There will be overlap -- in early history. This will be confusing -- if we do not look to current Church teaching for answers. This is what I mean. We must put the Catechism and other items first. If the Catechism says the woman is consecrated by the bishop in the prayer of consecration -- it is not correct to say she is really consecrated by implicit vows instead of by the bishop. This is what sponsa Christi has said. Even if early women -- possibly made a vow with a consecration pray -- today it is different. We have to read Church teaching to know the vocation today. If we read the Catechism on the vocation -- there is no confusion.

[Cecilia]

p. 10 from sponsa Christi, "

 

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."

 

 

All faithful -- all consecrated persons especially -- live the spirit of the evangelical counsels. A consecrated virgin is docile to her bishop -- to some degree -- however he must be docile to the Holy Spirit, who is her guide. To speak of a consecrated virgin's docility to her bishop -- we must be careful -- when there is no formal arrangement for her. The consecrated virgin should be humble -- and generous -- but she cannot expect the bishop to plan her life. He will be fatherly -- have insights -- but they must pray and discuss together. He is not a superior -- he has no obligation to plan her life -- to give her detailed input. She has no obligation to follow his preferences for her life, unless they both agree on items. That is all -- there cannot be obligations without duties and benefits. One who has an obligation of obedience -- also is supported in ways -- has benefits.

 

It is strange to hypothesize about obedience in matters to a bishop -- when he has no obligation to give detailed guidance -- but to not have obedience to the Church's Catechism on how a virgin is consecrated. To say she is not consecrated by the bishop but by implicit vows. This contradicts the Catechism. I have given quotes -- in pages back. I do not believe sponsa Christi intends this. But it gives this impression. To decide to be obedient in a way that is not part of the vocation -- to speak of being docile to a bishop deciding you have a certain job -- but to not be docile to the Catechism's teachings. This is the impression -- that is why I commented that it is good for sponsa Christi to be here to explain -- it will help us understand what she means when impressions are unfavorable.

[oremus1]

I was seeing page 9:

 

God's beloved, "Putting all the facts together , I think CV researchers should not depend on church documents to understand the vocation."

 

oremus1, "I also agree with the person who posted that we cannot depend on current documents to understand the vocation. we must look to the history, IN DETAIL. there we can find things like."

 

History signfies -- however if a current Church document gives details that go against a historical custom -- in the vocation -- the Church document is what signifies more. In early Church history it is difficult to know the difference -- between the propositum and what are vows today -- monastic and relgious vocations grew out of the consecrated virgins. There will be overlap -- in early history. This will be confusing -- if we do not look to current Church teaching for answers. This is what I mean. We must put the Catechism and other items first. If the Catechism says the woman is consecrated by the bishop in the prayer of consecration -- it is not correct to say she is really consecrated by implicit vows instead of by the bishop. This is what sponsa Christi has said. Even if early women -- possibly made a vow with a consecration pray -- today it is different. We have to read Church teaching to know the vocation today. If we read the Catechism on the vocation -- there is no confusion.

Cecilia, you have taken my comment out of context and have insinuiated I am inciting disobedience to the magisterium. this is incorrect and highly inapproproate.

 

 If i remember rightly, this was with regards to delegation to priests. At present, there are no documents of the magisterium which clearly spell out "this Rite is not allowed to be delegated to a priest". however, if you go back in history, in the early church, i think from around 3rd centry, there were LAWS prohibiting the consecration from being delegated to a priest. thus when we see in the current Ceremoniale Episcoporum that "a bishop may delegate to another bishop to perform the consecration", referring to current church documents alone, a bishop might rightly conclude that no explicit prohibition exists. But it is only looking historically that we can see there was a long tradition of it being reserved only to Bishops, and at one point in time, to the Pope. So we correctly should interpret this in accordance of what the practice always has been.
There are so few current documents of the magisterium referring explicitly to this vocation and interpretation of the Rite, that we cannot depend on them alone. So many CVs do not even understand the symbolism of the insignia properly. Or make the mistake of seeing the dearth of documents on the CV vocation, and simply amagamating CVs with religious. this is a mistake. they are two seperate vocations.

 

as there are so few church documents explicitly talking about this vocation, we cannot depend only on them ALONE.

[oremus1]

p. 10 from sponsa Christi, "

 

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."

 

 

All faithful -- all consecrated persons especially -- live the spirit of the evangelical counsels. A consecrated virgin is docile to her bishop -- to some degree -- however he must be docile to the Holy Spirit, who is her guide. To speak of a consecrated virgin's docility to her bishop -- we must be careful -- when there is no formal arrangement for her. The consecrated virgin should be humble -- and generous -- but she cannot expect the bishop to plan her life. He will be fatherly -- have insights -- but they must pray and discuss together. He is not a superior -- he has no obligation to plan her life -- to give her detailed input. She has no obligation to follow his preferences for her life, unless they both agree on items. That is all -- there cannot be obligations without duties and benefits. One who has an obligation of obedience -- also is supported in ways -- has benefits.

 

It is strange to hypothesize about obedience in matters to a bishop -- when he has no obligation to give detailed guidance -- but to not have obedience to the Church's Catechism on how a virgin is consecrated. To say she is not consecrated by the bishop but by implicit vows. This contradicts the Catechism. I have given quotes -- in pages back. I do not believe sponsa Christi intends this. But it gives this impression. To decide to be obedient in a way that is not part of the vocation -- to speak of being docile to a bishop deciding you have a certain job -- but to not be docile to the Catechism's teachings. This is the impression -- that is why I commented that it is good for sponsa Christi to be here to explain -- it will help us understand what she means when impressions are unfavorable.

how is sponsa's idea disobedient to the catechism?
while i disagree with her ideas being applicable to all CVs (that one should wear distinctive garb, have religious-like obedience to the bishop, should never move away from her diocese in her life, should only work for the church etc), perhaps they work for her in her own specific circumstances and her relationship with her bishop.

[Cecilia]

oremus1, I do not understand the current contentious posts here. I did not imply that you are disobedient -- and inciting disobedience. Why do you say this? I told you possibly I misread your comment -- I gave you the comment -- so you could see what I am referring to. I showed you the comment I saw from you -- that made me question your comment. I have not questioned your loyalty to the Church.

 

For sponsa Christi, I have not questioned her loyalty to the Church. I have said an impression is given -- I did not say it is disboedience. It is an impression. That language is intended to be gentle. I was explicit -- to say she gave an impression -- to not say she has a certain attitude. I cannot say more than this -- yet I will give my comments and observations even if they are not appreciated. I do not understand why this topic has become upsetting -- since I have been away. Why? Why is it this way? Why are people upsetting -- and take things personally? I do not understand.

 

For sponsa Christi to deny that the consecrated virgin is consecrated by the bishop in a prayer -- she has done this several pages back -- I have given many quotes from her and the Catechism -- and instead say the consecrated virgin is consecration by <<implicit vows>> -- for her to say this gives the <<impression>> of preferring her own position to the Catechism. I have asked her to explain her position -- because it seems strange to speak of docility to the Church -- yet to not respect certain texts. I am open to explanation -- to hear and understand. But I cannot understand what is not explained to me.

 

Possibly tempers here flare? I have been away -- I do not understand. Can we not dialogue with each other without having hurt feelings? I do not understand. I have not accused you. I gave comments -- observations -- to understand you better. How else will we share ideas?

[Cecilia]

For myself, I would appreciate fairness. When I try to be exact -- to give texts -- to ask specific question -- to ask for clarification. I ask for this to be respected. I gave examples -- the Catechism says these things --  I gave many quotes -- I said, sponsa Christi, you have said the opposite, and I have quoted her -- and I asked sponsa Christi, how do you reconcile the two -- your position versus the Catechism? I ask a question in good faith. I point out the impression that is given -- a bad impression -- that she seems not to intend to give. I did this again -- with sponsa Christi's position that women in secular institutes are not fully consecrated -- versus the Church's teachings that they are entirely consecrated. I have not received an explanation from sponsa Christi regarding how she can keep her position. To ask this question is to accuse nothing -- it is an attempt at dialgoue. I have tried hard -- to provide quotes -- but these are not addressed. I cannot do more. I give a quote, the Church teaches <<this>> -- I give the document -- I give the quote. sponsa Christi's position is the opposite. I ask her to explain. She does not. Possibly she will when she has time. I assume her good disposition -- however I ask logical questions. It is appropriate to do so.

 

Then I am accused of saying she is disobedient. This is unfair. I cannot be more than precise and ask questions to understand others's positions. However the readers will make up their own minds -- none of us can provide explanations for another that she decides not to give -- but for myself, I do ask for fairness and respect. I provided many texts -- many documents -- many comments -- and I asked many questions that have not been answered. They are ignored -- then I am accused of things have not done. This is not fair.

 

I have been away -- I have been working extra shifts for my ill coworker. I do not know if this topic is worth it. It seems that people are fighting with each other -- what is the point of that? Sad and strange. I have received several messages -- from those who are confused by sponsa Christi's positions. I cannot provide explanations. I would like to know the explanations-- so we can move forward -- share ideas -- grow together. But I cannot do this alone. I do not understand why I spend time -- research -- write -- give quotations -- ask questions -- and this is taken as if I intend to be unkind -- accusatory.