Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[Maggyie]

It's not that I think the vocation itself is a train wreck, but the modern experience of it certainly leaves a lot to be desired. There's little formal formation and not much official guidance on how this vocation is to be lived (no , treatises from learned theologians don't count as official).

I don't want to promote a stereotype but the younger women I've met in this vocation seem to have a healthier interaction with it. So many cv's are angry and rigid, almost brittle, like they are curled up in a fist. I'm sure this is a result of hurting from other Christians not understanding their call or treating them poorly, but it's not the right response, and not very bridal. The CVs get so little practical support from the Church , of course there are going to be problems.

I remember once reading a blog post linked on VS, and because the content specifically ran down other women and used the tone of a policewoman writing a ticket, I knew instantly: the writer must be a CV. It's really sad and I think in the cv community itself I think they realize this is a problem. I also don't want to be a negative nancy or discourage anyone, but it is what it is.

[abrideofChrist]

I don't want to promote a stereotype but the younger women I've met in this vocation seem to have a healthier interaction with it. So many cv's are angry and rigid, almost brittle, like they are curled up in a fist. I'm sure this is a result of hurting from other Christians not understanding their call or treating them poorly, but it's not the right response, and not very bridal. The CVs get so little practical support from the Church , of course there are going to be problems.
 

 

Please don't promote a stereotype.  Since its renewal in 1970, it would be fair to estimate that at least 4,000-5,000 women have become consecrated virgins.  If this rate of growth continues, consecrated virgins will be the single largest group of consecrated women in the Church within a century.  Many of the older women are beautiful souls.  The same goes for the younger.  They have a shared and deep love for the vocation chosen by the Holy Spirit for His Bride, the Virgin Mary.  Many are frustrated and angry with certain lies that are commonly spread about them or their vocation, but that does not negate the fact that they are still loving, gracious, humble, serving handmaids of the Lord.

 

I don't understand your stance on theological treatises.  The Church has a system for understanding the different branches of science:  theology, philosophy, and so on.  Most issues are addressed in these treatises because that is the ordinary way for the Church to develop and grow her understanding of things and her own praxis.  Each science has its own principles, methodology, and lexicon, so to speak.  When an official document is written, it is written in the language and customs of the disciplines it touches upon.  Things are said implicitly what don't need to be spelled out in detail because their significance should be caught by those who are trained in those disciplines, and the texts are also written so that the plain language should be sufficient for a basic understanding.  Many of the things we are to believe are not actually explicitly written in official church documents.  They are the logical developments in theology.  Other items are deliberately written so that it is clear that no universal legislation is going to be imposed because it is expected that the virtue of prudence is to be used in interpretation.  Because the Church does have this system in place and does formally train people in these sciences, she expects that these people also continue in the tradition of those sciences, so that they teach and interpret and grow the body of knowledge.

 

That was theoretical.  Let's go into the practical application.  A liturgist knows that the first thing one must do to understand the liturgy is to read it.  If things are unclear, one turns to older forms of the liturgy, commentaries on the liturgy, and any documents that shed light on the development of the liturgy.  In studying the Consecration Rite, the liturgist will note many things that may not be obvious to the casual reader that indicate the mens ecclesiae (the mind of the Church).  One virgin wants consecrated virgins to wear "distinctive dress" suggestive of a habit.  A liturgist, in examining this proposal, will look to the Rite.  The current 1970 Rite talks about the bridal insignia to be given to the virgin: veil, ring (and "customary" bridal insignia which means that local customs for designating brides should be taken into consideration and possibly adopted).  Anticipating the claim that bridal insignia simply means a "habit", the liturgist continues to dig deeper.  He discovers that the 1962 Rite, and the 1596 before it designated that "habits" were blessed in the Rite.  This habit blessing was dropped in the 1970 Rite.  Why would that be?  He turns to the official records of the coetus who formulated the 1970 Rite.  Because they decided to readmit women who were not sanctamoniales (nuns) who lived secular lives, they determined that it was not fitting for a woman in the world to be required to wear a habit.  Here again, other principles that are well known to theologians and others comes into play.  A privilege is often paired with an obligation.  The privilege of wearing a habit, which is given to the person by the Church is paired with the obligation to wear it.  The Church did not concede this privilege because the Church did not put in a blessing and wearing of habits section in the new 1970 Rite.  If this isn't enough to convince people that the Church did not intend virgins in the world to wear a habit, then the liturgist can invoke another principle.  A person's rights cannot be restricted except by the law.  This is in canon law, which liturgists have to be familiar with because it provides some of the principles for interpreting liturgical law which is in the liturgy.  The obligation to wear a habit is a restriction on a person's rights and freedom.  Such a law would have to be interpreted strictly whereas if there is no law, the widest possible latitude must be given to people.  This means that a consecrated virgin is free to wear whatever modest outfit she wishes because there is no law and no obligation to wear "distinctive dress".  The liturgist can turn his attention to "bridal" insignia if he wishes.  He will discover through his purusal of the Rites and the commentaries - many of them written by the same guys who wrote the Rites! - that the ceremony was written to parallel ordinations and marriage.  He learns that the reason why the new Rite removed the crown is because the marriage rites had discontinued giving the crown.  He also digs down deeper and learns that the veil is not supposed to be a nun-veil for women living in the world but a one time bridal veil.  Again, this he discovers because of the Rites, the commentaries (again, many of them written by the same men who wrote the Rites), and the theological treatises of the saints and scholars.  The liturgist doesn't have to turn to explicit passages in the Catechism or even in the instructions from the Vatican which require the Rite of marriage to be studied jointly with the Rite of Consecration of Virgins to know that his conclusion is right.  He is assured that he has taken the proper steps for interpretation, and that given the evidence, cannot come to any other conclusion.  The Church does not have to spell out the fact that consecrated virgins living in the world are not obligated to wear "distinctive dress" nor that she does not intend them to do so.  It is already there.  Americans, though, want everything to be written in legal writing in a way they understand to be law.  E.g.  "No virgins shall wear "distinctive dress" or a habit."  or "All virgins shall wear a habit."  They don't understand that this is not how the Church operates nor will she operate this way because there is no need.

[abrideofChrist]

Our hypothetical liturgist, can continue to examine the issue of a habit or distinctive dress on other grounds.  One of these grounds is a concept called "separation from the world".  It is something that properly belongs to religious and in a certain sense, to hermits.  It is on account of the "separation from the world" that religious are given habits from the Church.  It is a sign of their public lifestyle of following the evangelical counsels in a very distinctive way.  He looks to the theology of vows and realizes that religious have their framework for following those vows.  Secular Institues make the same vows and enter a public state of life, but their vows do not require them to live in "separation from the world".  This means, as Church documents show, that the vows by their very nature do not require "separation from the world".  This is why the Church does not in principle give habits to people in secular institutes.  Interestingly enough, the Church allows women in secular institutes to receive the consecration of virgins.  Our liturgist comes to the conclusion that the Church is emphatically pointing out that "distinctive dress" proper to religious women is not the expected dress for women living in the world.

[abrideofChrist]

Our liturgist can examine the claim that "distinctive dress" is necessary to show a person's public state of virginity.  Again, the liturgist can effectively show that the Church's understanding of public state is distinct from the concept of "separation from the world".  He can point out that one of the reasons that the Church gradually moved from weddings done at home was to emphasize the sacramental and public nature of the state of marriage.  A wedding ring is the customary sign of the bride's new state in life.  Following the ancient tradition that what is done at weddings is done in the consecration of virgins, the ring is the customary sign of the consecrated virgin's new state in life. 

[cruciatacara]

:crazy: There seems to be something not quite right with the CV vocation though because every time it's discussed on phatmass, it seems to turn into a catfight!

[BarbTherese]

I always thought of the religious sisters in habit as signifying one "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" especially when we used to see them so often around the place wherever one might be and probably pre V2 more than anything.  The problem back then was that religious sisters were formed (formation) to be totally rejecting of the world, rather than understanding themselves and their vocation as "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" contrary to nuns who were largely strictly enclosed and rarely seen except if out and about for some important or emergency reason.  This pre V2 understanding came to be experienced culturally generally as religious sisters having nothing to do at all with secular society - totally out of the world and not at all "for the world" in that they rejected it completely, just moved about in general society now and then.

 

I wonder if the religious habit per se itself has a stereotype?  And it was a backlash or knee jerk reaction to abandon and correct that stereotype by abandoning the habit altogether at least certainly in the main here in Australia and to make the statement, which existed anyway to my mind "in the world for the world" but not "of the world" by a lapel badge or perhaps a cross on a chain on secular clothing.

 

I wonder if the religious habit per se today has a stereotype and that it is exclusive for religious sisters and nuns alone.  If Rome wants it that way, it is fine by me.  But moving about in general society as I do in secular clothing, there is nothing at all to identify me to the sense of sight on the part of others that I am a practising and faithful Catholic, a follower of Jesus and His Gospel - and should there be such an identifying factor? Would it be helpful?............the same for Consecrated Virgins - some sort of identifying unique factor.

I used to wear a cross on a leather thong and this for me was trying to make a statement that the cross I wear is not worn for decorative jewellery, but means something far more and that I am a committed (Catholic) Christian.  My SD remarked one visit and jokingly actually, that it made me look like a religious sister (because religious sisters have adopted/'hijacked' (LOL) secular clothing).  I abandoned the cross because I do not want others to think I am a religious sister of any kind.  Mine is a different vocation in the laity.

 

Or is the vocation of CV (and those like me and in a different vocation to CV) to be the hidden leaven in the mix since there is nothing at all to identify vocation (which is intrinsically the person that we are) other than a wedding or commitment ring and these items are quite common in general society.  My thoughts are that as long as Rome insists the religious habit is for religious sisters and nuns only that we are to be hidden leaven.  That is how I am reading the current situation.

 

 

[BarbTherese]

.............edit............  The Church does not have to spell out the fact that consecrated virgins living in the world are not obligated to wear "distinctive dress" nor that she does not intend them to do so.  It is already there.  Americans, though, want everything to be written in legal writing in a way they understand to be law.  E.g.  "No virgins shall wear "distinctive dress" or a habit."  or "All virgins shall wear a habit."  They don't understand that this is not how the Church operates nor will she operate this way because there is no need.

 

Though I have edited out the greater part of your post, BoC, it did make very interesting reading and was informative - and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.  I think I understand myself now - but could I explain it? I very much doubt it.

 

Re the above and quoted from your post, however, by not clearly spelling things out and for those of us who are not educated in the various 'sciences' or 'schools', expertise (whatever the correct term might be), in Church matters (and this would probably apply to the greater majority of us quite everyday ordinary Catholics), do you think that things are left wide open for the ordinary Catholic to not understand at all, even to totally misunderstand.  Do you think in fact that there just might be a need?

[abrideofChrist]

Though I have edited out the greater part of your post, BoC, it did make very interesting reading and was informative - and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.  I think I understand myself now - but could I explain it? I very much doubt it.

 

Re the above and quoted from your post, however, by not clearly spelling things out and for those of us who are not educated in the various 'sciences' or 'schools', expertise (whatever the correct term might be), in Church matters (and this would probably apply to the greater majority of us quite everyday ordinary Catholics), do you think that things are left wide open for the ordinary Catholic to not understand at all, even to totally misunderstand.  Do you think in fact that there just might be a need?

 

The Rites contained in the Roman Pontifical presuppose sufficient information and formation for the recipients of those Rites.  The words of the Rite point to truths that are explained in greater detail elsewhere.  For example, the ceremony of ordination presupposes that the man being ordained knows about his vocation from formation.  The Church talks about the vocation in numerous papal documents, statements of the councils, the catechism, the code of canon law, and many theological works.  The most basic notion, though, is that a man who gets ordained is that he has been given powers to do things that the rest of the faithful can't do.  There are people who will go against all the documents and claim that women can be ordained because a statement to the contrary has never been pronounced "ex cathedra".  The Church does not see it necessary to state "ex cathedra that only a man can be ordained.  Only people with a persistent agenda who absolutely will not subject themselves to the normal teaching authority of the Church will ignore the preponderance of evidence that only a man can be ordained. 

 

This is the same situation we have for many contested areas of consecrated virginity.  Most of this could be avoided if people would simply read the Rites and follow them!  If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory to ordained only men and that despite the clear language of the Church want to have the ceremony for women, we wouldn't have the mess we are in.  If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory for the Church to consecrate women based in part on their virginity, we wouldn't have women wanting to change the word "virginity" to "chastity".  I can't emphasize this enough.  People would understand so much about the vocation by simply reading the Rite, word by word.  An unbiased observer who doesn't believe that religious life is the epitome and paradigm for consecrated life will be able to grasp the nature of the vocation from the Rite.  Trouble comes when people want to make it like religious life. 

Edited January 31, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I saw 2 types, CV and CVR. Can't married couples also take a vow of virginity ?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Also you talk of consecrated women aren't there any consecrated lay single men to the CV vocation of course there are in the CVR ? Also i only bring up the married thing because on ewtn i heard about a married couple who took a vow of chastity(the no sex chastity, not the one partner chastity and check your dictionaries if you don't know the difference) and the women in the CV marriage became a lay saint, an actual canonized saint.

[BarbTherese]

The Rites contained in the Roman Pontifical presuppose sufficient information and formation for the recipients of those Rites. I didn't mean recipients of the Rite, rather just ordinary Catholics understanding a certain vocation.  The words of the Rite point to truths that are explained in greater detail elsewhere.  For example, the ceremony of ordination presupposes that the man being ordained knows about his vocation from formation. I would certainly hope that no matter the vocation, the person embracing a certain vocation will understand what it means and does not mean.  The Church talks about the vocation in numerous papal documents, statements of the councils, the catechism, the code of canon law, and many theological works.  The most basic notion, though, is that a man who gets ordained is that he has been given powers to do things that the rest of the faithful can't do.  There are people who will go against all the documents and claim that women can be ordained because a statement to the contrary has never been pronounced "ex cathedra".  I was not referring to Holy Orders specifically but the various vocations so that the ordinary Catholic can understand what the various vocations are all about without needing to go through complex documents and numbers of them. The Church does not see it necessary to state "ex cathedra that only a man can be ordained.  Only people with a persistent agenda who absolutely will not subject themselves to the normal teaching authority of the Church will ignore the preponderance of evidence that only a man can be ordained. I was not referring to those who clearly go against what The Church teaches and what is quite clearly known generally as what The Church teaches.

 

This is the same situation we have for many contested areas of consecrated virginity.  Most of this could be avoided if people would simply read the Rites and follow them! I agree, but from your previous post it seemed to me that the Rite for Consecration of Virgins was not clear - and this may not be the problem of the Rite, but of my understanding of what you wrote.  If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory to ordained only men and that despite the clear language of the Church want to have the ceremony for women, we wouldn't have the mess we are in. If a Catholic wants women priests and advocates for same then they are clearly outside of what The Church teaches - and being just a person in the pews myself, I know that the ordinary Catholic can be very confused about what The Church does actually teach and on many subjects and at times have adopted what is clearly not Church teaching, simply because they read or were told by a priest or religious (or someone they regard as an authority on Catholicism) something contrary to what The Church teaches.  And if someone like me and just one of their peers in the pews tries to correct the situation, one simply cannot. If people didn't get it into their heads that it is discriminatory for the Church to consecrate women based in part on their virginity, we wouldn't have women wanting to change the word "virginity" to "chastity" Well, for myself, I clearly do understand that the Consecration of Virgins is for physical virgins only (although rape may not disqualify, I really wouldn't know, so please do not be offended if I am wrong).  To my way of thought, discrimination does not enter into the consideration. It is a secular concern. The Church has the right to state who qualifies for what and who does not to my mind. I can't emphasize this enough.  People would understand so much about the vocation by simply reading the Rite, word by word.  An unbiased observer who doesn't believe that religious life is the epitome and paradigm for consecrated life will be able to grasp the nature of the vocation from the Rite.  Trouble comes when people want to make it like religious life.  I am taking it that by "it" you mean when 'people want to make Consecrated Virginity like religious life'.  Two entirely different vocations in the consecrated state of life.

 

I have probably misunderstood your post, and I think probably you misunderstood mine.  It happens. C'est la vie! :)

 

 

 

[BarbTherese]

Are there links to the various Liturgical Rites for the various vocations ?  Please don't get cross, I am just an ordinary day to day type Catholic who can't make scones without providing an axe to cut them! :)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Are there links to the various Liturgical Rites for the various vocations ?  Please don't get cross, I am just an ordinary day to day type Catholic who can't make scones without providing an axe to cut them! :)

 

Me too. :LOL:

[abrideofChrist]

 

 

I did not say that the Rite wasn't clear.  I said that people need to read it first to understand the vocation.  A need for greater education comes into play when someone denies what is in the Rite or makes up spurious obligations based on their spiritual feelings.  In other words, the Rite for virgins does not impose the obligation on virgins living in the world to wear a habit.  Someone who claims virgins should wear "distinctive garb" is not reading the Rite as it is written which omits any liturgical bestowal of the habit, or where the emphasis is placed on women living in the world, living according to her situation in life.  Only a person looking at the Rite with the lense of religious life being the epitome and sole paradigm for consecrated life would assume that cvs living in the world should wear a habit even though the Rite itself omits it.  When someone who is not well formed makes the claim anyway that a cv should wear distinctive garb, then the more educated have the wearisome task of demonstrating that this goes against the Church's discipline and intentions for consecrated virgins living in the world by connecting the dots as I did in that example.  A well formed person who knew their theology of consecrated life wouldn't have made such a fundamental mistake. 

I brought up orders because there are people who want women to be priests and it is long since settled that women cannot be priests.  The same thing can be said of consecrated virgins.  They are women and it is long since settled that men cannot be consecrated virgins.  Only someone bent on changing the nature of the vocations would want to insist that women can be priests or men can be cvs, and they exist all over the place.  Some people will not believe anything the Church teaches unless it's taught ex cathedra.  Most things are not taught ex cathedra because the Church believes them to be so unassilable in themselves that there is no need.  This includes the teaching that orders is reserved to men.  It is not an ex cathedra statement but it is de fide.

 

Where to find copies of the Rites in the Pontifical?  I have never bothered to track down and see if all the Rites are online.  The book is protected by copyright which is why people will not publish entire Rites. Buy a current copy of the Pontifical.  It even has the Praenotandae of the Rite of Consecration for Virgins Living in the World!  The section that most people don't read because it's not on the internet but which does talk about the nature of the vocation and the main duties of consecrated virgins.

Edited January 31, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

  The same thing can be said of consecrated virgins.  They are women and it is long since settled that men cannot be consecrated virgins. 

 

So men can not be consecrated virgins? So what about the married couple i was talking about? And it is a whole different board game between this and women being priests. And someone said there is CV and CVR (consecrated virgin religious,) i read that as CV being lay and CVR as nun or missionary. Why can't men me consecrated virgins if you know the whole deal, i assumed if lay women could than surely lay men could also. And also some people think out loud trying to understand, there not trying to deceive there just saying as much of the truth as they know according to there understanding. Of course they should say as far as i understand, i assume, possibly and you probably should check what the church says also, or words to this effect. But we don't always say these things for whatever reason, we can not judge them as deliberately deceiving, i assume there is a difference between a lost sheep and a wolf in sheeps clothing and a lost sheep, and perhaps a difference between a lost sheep and someone just having a go at being the best christian they can be, black, white or grey sheep, knowing a lot or a little. :) No pun intended, just my thoughts and feelings.

 

God is Good.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye