Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[God's Beloved]

God's beloved, Thank you. Did you read all of my comments -- I understand -- there are many. One pages or two pages ago -- I put the quotation from you -- I put the quotation from oremus1 -- this so you could what I was asking you about. I said I did not understand why you made the comment you made about Church documents -- I did not say you don't follow them. Do you understand? We cannot dialogue if we do not ask each other questions. I do not understand why you feel offended. I asked you to clarify. This is not an accusation -- however when I began to put the topic here -- I wanted a topic that would try hard to dialogue. I am uncertain why you think I would be shocked to know -- different positions -- this is what we are here for, yes? To put this all forward. To gather ideas and positions together. To ask questions -- give answers -- dialogue. My consecrated virgin friends are in real life -- this is my first time with consecrated virgin <<friends>> on the internet. There seem to be many hurt feelings -- many attitudes of unhappiness -- why? I do not understand this.

 

If I do not agree with your position -- that the Vatican did not undestand this vocation -- was confused -- did not know the history -- if I do not agree with your conclusion -- why do you attack me for that? I gave you one quotation from you -- I asked you to explain it -- you blew up. Why? This is strange. But I have been away -- and fights have broken out. I did not say I was overworked -- I said I was away -- and now while I was gone -- fighting here. I was here -- everyone dialoguing -- I come back -- everyone fighting -- everyone accusing. It is too bad. It makes the consecrated vocation discussions look bad. But the consecrated virgins I know in my country are not like this -- they can disagree -- without making accusations -- and being upset.

 

Will you have better feelings if I tell you clearly -- I do not question your loyalty to Mother Church. I asked questions about your position -- that is a different matter.

 

Cecilia, the fact that I've not been posting on the thread recently, is because I AM REALLY VERY BUSY AT THE MOMENT . Your comments seemed to come out of the blue , when I was absent from the conversation. I was forced to respond.

 

In a conference of theologians, where other participants are only spectators ,there are certain commonalities due to which dialogue /debate is possible. Also if for some reason one theologian is absent for some time, she does not come in suddenly and start sharing interpretations and asking questions on what the rest of the group already discussed in her absence , because she would not be aware of the group dynamics in the past , and this intervention would break the current group thought process .

 

I have been saying that I believe in commonality on the Essence of the vocation  , leaving the accidental elements to local bishops and CVs to decide.  I  believe that it is better for me to find the truth about the Essence through research on early church positions , discerning what elements of the Essence were / are static or dynamic . You discuss your positions based on Post -Vat II documents. There is incommensurability in our methodology --we cannot debate unless we find some common measure to base our dialogue / debate.

 

Shall get back to this after few days. I'm coming to the thread only to lighten my mood inbetween  my other commitments these days.Can you hold back your comments on this topic for few days , PLEASE !?

[God's Beloved]

Hello to all friends once again ! :cheers:

 

I've read that there is going to be a meeting of CVs in Rome for the Year of Cons. life . :pope2: Any information ?

 

How I would love to be present. I've never attended any such gathering of CV anywhere in the past. Wish we could all meet in person and have some solid discussions and communion. :wedgie: :dance5:

 

But what about those of us who cannot afford such a trip ? :console:  any thoughts ? :think:

[Cecilia]

God's beloved, Thank you -- I do not know if I will hold my comments -- but when you can post -- this is good for me. Probably we are all busy -- and comment here as we can. If we have different methodologies -- this is not a problem -- it is a way to dialogue -- in different ways. I think we should be patient -- with each other -- and not assume questions are meant to be accusations. This is the debate silo -- Aloysius told us this means we share ideas -- we do not need to agree. We can disagree -- we can press ideas -- we can contradict. To contradict -- to disagree -- that is not the same as accusing. I think you agree -- yes? You do not address all of my comments -- you comment on some -- you disregard others. This is fine. You have your own ideas -- interests here -- I do the same. I comment here -- with things I think signify -- this does not mean I am ignoring discussion. It does not mean you are ignoring discussion. If you develop some dialogues -- I develop others -- that is fine. We should give each other space, yes? That is how I will proceed.

[abrideofChrist]

Cecilia, I agree with you 100% in almost all your posts.  I would go about giving props except you wrote a lot of good posts!  You have posted what the Church teaches.  Sponsa Christi has not come up with a sufficient explanation to explain her contradictory positions.  She can't.  Her positions are contradictory because they are based on a flawed premise.  It is because she doesn't know what the nature of consecration is that she cannot accept secular institutes as having a true consecration.  It is because she doesn't know the nature of consecration that she cannot have CVs be CVs without "implicit" vows.  The Church documents don't need to say that a priest can't be deputized to do the consecration.  If it's not in the document that specifies that it is the BISHOP or the BISHOP's BISHOP-DELEGATE then where else is one supposed to go to find the power to delegate to a priest?  O.  Maybe one needs to go to the commission that formulated the Rite to begin with.  Viola!  The CDF deleted the texts in the Rite that permitted priests to be delegated to do the Rite because it went against the "time immemorial" customs (think: law) of the Church.  That's right.  Before the Rite was promulgated, it went to different curial offices.  The CDF would not permit it to be promulgated before certain changes were made.  This is not something pre-Vatican II.  This is post-Vatican II.  That self same commission that formulated the Rite specified that the theology and origin of religious life and consecrated virginity are different.  Something to ponder.  Again, Sponsa Christi is well out of her league here because it tears apart her theory that the theology of consecrated virginity is watered down religious life and that the implicit vows are consecrated and it is not the woman being consecrated.  What she needs to do is go up to her professors and ask them what consecration is and whether it consecrates a bond or whether it consecrates a person.

[BarbTherese]

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133280-signing-off/

 

 

[oremus1]

Cecilia, I agree with you 100% in almost all your posts.  I would go about giving props except you wrote a lot of good posts!  You have posted what the Church teaches.  Sponsa Christi has not come up with a sufficient explanation to explain her contradictory positions.  She can't.  Her positions are contradictory because they are based on a flawed premise.  It is because she doesn't know what the nature of consecration is that she cannot accept secular institutes as having a true consecration.  It is because she doesn't know the nature of consecration that she cannot have CVs be CVs without "implicit" vows.  The Church documents don't need to say that a priest can't be deputized to do the consecration.  If it's not in the document that specifies that it is the BISHOP or the BISHOP's BISHOP-DELEGATE then where else is one supposed to go to find the power to delegate to a priest?  O.  Maybe one needs to go to the commission that formulated the Rite to begin with.  Viola!  The CDF deleted the texts in the Rite that permitted priests to be delegated to do the Rite because it went against the "time immemorial" customs (think: law) of the Church.  That's right.  Before the Rite was promulgated, it went to different curial offices.  The CDF would not permit it to be promulgated before certain changes were made.  This is not something pre-Vatican II.  This is post-Vatican II.  That self same commission that formulated the Rite specified that the theology and origin of religious life and consecrated virginity are different.  Something to ponder.  Again, Sponsa Christi is well out of her league here because it tears apart her theory that the theology of consecrated virginity is watered down religious life and that the implicit vows are consecrated and it is not the woman being consecrated.  What she needs to do is go up to her professors and ask them what consecration is and whether it consecrates a bond or whether it consecrates a person.

I agree. In particular, in (i think from memory) the 1971 Notitiae specifically states that a CV can be a member of a secular institute. if the two vocations were wholly incompatibel this would not be possible.

 

However Cecilia I, like Gods Belowed and Sponsa, am very offended that you have taken our comments out of context, questioned our obedience to the Church, in order rile people up into answering your SAME questions that you always ask. this is why people are offended. in particular, if one wants to live like a nun, thats up to them, if they want to live it like a secular insitute, thats their choice. they are serving God in the best way for them, and thats good. but i think it is wrong to try to enforce one persons view on everyone.

 

like you cecilia, I have had many questions on this thread which are not answered, but i am not offending people to pressure them into answering them.

 

my questions relate to:

1) I have previously quoted the response from Congregation for Consecrated life which says that dispensation is not prohibited and is within the remit of the bishop's decision. how can this be, if it is a nuptial vocation like matrimony? unless they do not think it is

2) Abride has indicated that for one to be accepted as a CV, she should meet the objective criteria AND a far more rigorous, subjective criteria from St Thomas Aquinas ,  which effectively means anyone who has French kissed, masterbated, hugged someone passionately, etc has experieneced 'veneral lust' and therefore is not a virgin and should disqualify herself. elsewhere i have even seen suggestions that this should be acieved by making a manifestation of conscience to the bishop. Does anyone else actually agree with this approach?

 

Edited March 3, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

abrideofChrist, Thank you. It is not easy – to find the time – to be thorough and put forward the necessary texts and questions.

 

Barbaratherese, Thank you. Probably we will all pray for each other—and sponsa Christi – during the Lent season.

 

Oremus1, Please stop attacking me for disagreeing with you. This is getting tiresome – and it is immature. This is the debate silo – it does not matter how many people are upset – if the tempers are flaring and it is not a mature response – it does not matter if 200 people are upset – the response is mature, or it is not. Numbers do not signify – if the reaction is misplaced.

 

Sponsa Christi does not match Church teaching – on whether members of secular institutes are fully consecrated – on whether the consecrated virgin in the world takes implicit vows. You might not understand – but denying members of secular institutes full consecrated status – this signifies greatly. It is no small matter. It is not a small disagreement. If she does not answer questions – respond to texts that come from the Church – this is her choice. When I give texts –  to show she is ignoring items from the Church – there is nothing more to say – she has said <<I am not ignoring them>> -- I have said <<You are.>> This is not complex. It does not need to be a means to attack each other in a topic that is meant to be <<debate>> -- possibly I should put that in capital letters <<DEBATE>> -- on an important issue.

 

You have stated your comment – that I quoted – and the context around your comment – why you made it. I responded to you – thanked you. If that is not enough – if you are still determined – to say I am accusing you – I can only say <<I am not.>> You respond << You are.>> -- So? – That is where it is left. God’s beloved has commented – she and I have different methodologies – this signifies. We see that about each other. – So? – I do not agree with her methodology – She does not agree with mine. This is a <<DEBATE.>> The attacks on each other here aid nothing. When someone says – your idea is wrong – this is why – this is why what you say is wrong -- to say – you are mean to me – you are questioning my loyalty to Holy Church – when the arena is a debate arena – this is immature. Once – probably fine. Possibly tempers flare. Again – and again – that is immature. Sometimes – in many, many pages – we will miss things. Probably we will miss context – here – and there. You can patiently explain your idea again – try to be kind to the person asking – or you can attack. I asked sponsa Christi – again, and again, and again – I did not press until she equivocated many times. You – I ask you one thing – you blow up. That is too bad. You were not patient – with me – for one second.

 

It is too bad – and embarassing – that consecrated virgins cannot debate – without blowing up – without getting hurt feelings.

[God's Beloved]

Oremus,

 

The Congr. for Cons. Life did not say that dispensation from obligations was possible. They only said they had received such a question.[they did not even state whether the question was about dispensation from obligation to serve the church , or from the obligation to remain celibate and a virgin.]. They said there was no formal definition. And their response was more than a decade ago.

The Rite itself is clearer in the latin version, implying an indissoluble spousal bond due to the consecration.

 

Probably the church would think that a CV who later feels called to sacramental marriage could receive a dispensation to be allowed to be married in church , inspite of a spousal bond with Christ, which would remain indissoluble.

Edited March 3, 2014 by God's Beloved

[God's Beloved]

Does anyone have the link to the recent document released in Italian  for reflection by consecrated persons ? I am unable to find the link . I saw it on the vatican website for few moments the other day and then it disappeared ! It is called 'Rejoice'

[oremus1]

Oremus,

 

The Congr. for Cons. Life did not say that dispensation from obligations was possible. They only said they had received such a question.[they did not even state whether the question was about dispensation from obligation to serve the church , or from the obligation to remain celibate and a virgin.]. They said there was no formal definition. And their response was more than a decade ago.

The Rite itself is clearer in the latin version, implying an indissoluble spousal bond due to the consecration.

 

Probably the church would think that a CV who later feels called to sacramental marriage could receive a dispensation to be allowed to be married in church , inspite of a spousal bond with Christ, which would remain indissoluble.

 

Seems clear to me that it is this they arereferrring to:

 

 

Canon 604#1 says that we are consecrated by the Bishop. How exactly is this different from the Prayer of consecration in the Rite for the Profession of Religious Women ? In several theological articles it is said that in the Cons. of virgins what is specific is the charismatic element in the Rite whereas in the Rite of Religious Profession what is specific is the ascetic element or the Profession of vows according to the Constitution of the Institute .............Since the Consecration takes place by the very words in the Prayer of Consecration, the Information provided by the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says that it is Irrevocable. They say there can be no dispensation from the commitment ...........in case later in life the virgin feels a call to marriage. How far is this true ?

 

Their response : Prot.n. SpR 862-4/2003 was :

 

........ it is to be hoped that as the Rite is better known,and is studied both by the candidate and by the consecrating bishop, it will be clear that the candidate's proposito expresses her intent and the solemn prayer of the Bishop consecrates her. This is distinct from the rite of religious profession in which the profession of the evangelical counsels- all other canonical requirements being in place--consecrates the candidate to God[c.654]

 

It would be true to say that the Consecration effected through the Rite is permanent. For this reason some Bishops require periods of time with a private vow of chastity during the formation time, before accepting a candidate for the Consecration.We have , however, received the question of a possible dispensation from the proposito and from the obligations arising from the Consecration. This while regrettable, would seem would be within the competency of the Diocesan Bishop. There has not been any formal definition in this regard

[God's Beloved]

Does anyone have the link to the recent document released in Italian  for reflection by consecrated persons ? I am unable to find the link . I saw it on the vatican website for few moments the other day and then it disappeared ! It is called 'Rejoice'

 

February 28, 2014 - In preparation for the Year for Consecrated Life, members of religious orders, secular institutes and consecrated virgins are asked to spend a considerable amount of time remembering the joy they felt when they first realized God was calling them. " Pope Francis has asked us to let our hearts dwell on a freeze-frame of the joy of 'the moment when Jesus looked at me,'" said Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Archbishop Jose Rodriguez Carballo, respectively prefect and secretary of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. In a letter titled "Rejoice" - released Feb. 26 only in Italian - the two drew on the teaching of Pope Francis to propose ways consecrated men and women could prepare for the Year for Consecrated Life, which will begin Nov. 30. Scheduled to close just over 14 months later, on Feb. 2, 2016, the year will include an ecumenical meeting with religious orders of other Christian churches, as well as special gatherings for young religious men and women and for consecrated virgins.

 

"In a world that lives not trusting, discouraged and depressed, in a culture in which men and women let themselves be overcome by their fragility and weakness, by individualism and self-interest, we are asked to introduce trust in the possibility of true happiness and a hope that isn't based only on one's talents, qualities and knowledge, but on God," they said. Even for consecrated people who are not part of religious communities, they said, the path of fidelity to Christ passes through community life and one's relationship with others. In a world where relationships seem increasingly fragile and conflict reigns, the letter said, consecrated people are called to be witnesses of "the communion of spirits and hearts" of those who gather around Jesus to follow and be nourished by him. (Source: CNS)

Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/02/28/vatican_officials_tell_religious_to_recall_the_joy_of_their_vocation/in2-777424
of the Vatican Radio website

[oremus1]

"RALLEGRATEVI Lettera circolare ai consacrati e alle consacrate dal magistero di Papa Francesco"

you can buy it from vaticanum.com for about 5 euros.

http://www.vaticanum.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2770

[Maggyie]

Seems clear to me that it is this they arereferrring to:

 

 

Canon 604#1 says that we are consecrated by the Bishop. How exactly is this different from the Prayer of consecration in the Rite for the Profession of Religious Women ? In several theological articles it is said that in the Cons. of virgins what is specific is the charismatic element in the Rite whereas in the Rite of Religious Profession what is specific is the ascetic element or the Profession of vows according to the Constitution of the Institute .............Since the Consecration takes place by the very words in the Prayer of Consecration, the Information provided by the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says that it is Irrevocable. They say there can be no dispensation from the commitment ...........in case later in life the virgin feels a call to marriage. How far is this true ?

 

Their response : Prot.n. SpR 862-4/2003 was :

 

........ it is to be hoped that as the Rite is better known,and is studied both by the candidate and by the consecrating bishop, it will be clear that the candidate's proposito expresses her intent and the solemn prayer of the Bishop consecrates her. This is distinct from the rite of religious profession in which the profession of the evangelical counsels- all other canonical requirements being in place--consecrates the candidate to God[c.654]

 

It would be true to say that the Consecration effected through the Rite is permanent. For this reason some Bishops require periods of time with a private vow of chastity during the formation time, before accepting a candidate for the Consecration.We have , however, received the question of a possible dispensation from the proposito and from the obligations arising from the Consecration. This while regrettable, would seem would be within the competency of the Diocesan Bishop. There has not been any formal definition in this regard

 

Thanks for pointing this out once again. If dispensation from the obligations of consecration was simply and completely out of the question, they would not have said dispensation "would seem to be within the competency of the Diocesan Bishop."

[BarbTherese]

While a married woman (or man) who later separates and her husband divorces her, and no annulment is granted, must stay in the state of celibate chastity for the rest of her life and rather often not at all her choice as a state in life for the balance of her life, nor can she embrace some form of consecrated life since according to Church Law, she is still married.

[oremus1]

While a married woman (or man) who later separates and her husband divorces her, and no annulment is granted, must stay in the state of celibate chastity for the rest of her life and rather often not at all her choice as a state in life for the balance of her life, nor can she embrace some form of consecrated life since according to Church Law, she is still married.

i feel sad for women in this situation. but she does not necessarily need a 'state in life vocation'. she can still gain spiritual support from prayer groups etc. i think she can join a third order, or become an oblate  too.