Consecrated Virgin In The World - 50 Words Or Less

[oremus1]

Some thoughts on this:

 

1. I actually don't think secular institute members are outright forbidden to wear habits (although granted, this does go against the spirit of their vocations in probably at least 95% of all cases...). I think a few institutes do have a distinctive garb. But this is somewhat beside the point.

 

2. A CV secular institute member perhaps should not wear identifying clothing specifically as part of her vocation to her institute, but this is a different issue from the question of whether or not she should be a public witness in her capacity as a consecrated virgin. The point in my previous post is that, if a vocation to consecrated virginity could be considered a woman's main vocation, then the public witness of her consecrated virginity might take precedence over the "hiddeness" of her secular institute vocation. This would be similar to how a priest-member of a secular institute is still called to be open about his priesthood.

 

3. I'm not actually trying to argue that wearing a veil is required for CVs. But, even if something (like a daily veil) is not required, it still may be appropriate and praiseworthy. 

 

the CV wears a wedding ring, i'd think that is just as public witness as a married persons wedding ring.

 

i think it can be fitting for a CV to wear a veil, but that the obligation should not be made mandatory. the veil i have in mind is more of rectangle scarf which preserves her modesty, yet is not to be confussed with a religious veil: like the one in my avatar, or like this http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RIG1ZFi_bfI/TNrmjmYMlJI/AAAAAAAABNc/M4yTRgRy9PY/s1600/JERUSALEM+26+0811.jpg
 

Edited February 2, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christ, <<Public witness>> and <<Public vocation>> are used by the Church. <<To publicly identify -- as a Christian>> is a phrase I use casually.

 

Publicly identify as Christian – casual term. Generally -- to not hide your light under a bushel basket… Generally -- as followers of Christ -- we are called to witness to Him. The entire faith should inform our entire life.

 

Public witness – particular to religious life per the Magisterium’s teachings – habit, communal life, set apart from the world, a visible sign of the Kingdom to come -- explicitly set apart from the world to signify the world to come. See paragraph 10 in document. Involves only a subset of those who have a public vocation -- to religious life. May be <<out of sight>> and still be <<public witness.>> Think of remote monastic community – few in the world <<see them.>> Few <<know about them>> -- however they live a public witness.

 

Public vocation – Publicly entering into a state of life in the Church – various. Marriage, consecrated virgin in the world, ordination of clergy, religious. Versus private vows. Public vocation is a status in the Church – does not require being publicized to have the status of being public – think of an underground bishop in China.  Think of a couple who marries secretly for some reason. Being unpublicized does not affect public status.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Sponsa Christ, <<Public witness>> and <<Public vocation>> are used by the Church. <<To publicly identify -- as a Christian>> is a phrase I use casually.

 

Publicly identify as Christian – casual term. Generally -- to not hide your light under a bushel basket… Generally -- as followers of Christ -- we are called to witness to Him. The entire faith should inform our entire life.

 

Public witness – particular to religious life per the Magisterium’s teachings – habit, communal life, set apart from the world, a visible sign of the Kingdom to come -- explicitly set apart from the world to signify the world to come. See paragraph 10 in document. Involves only a subset of those who have a public vocation -- to religious life. May be <<out of sight>> and still be <<public witness.>> Think of remote monastic community – few in the world <<see them.>> Few <<know about them>> -- however they live a public witness.

 

Public vocation – Publicly entering into a state of life in the Church – various. Marriage, consecrated virgin in the world, ordination of clergy, religious. Versus private vows. Public vocation is a status in the Church – does not require being publicized to have the status of being public – think of an underground bishop in China.  Think of a couple who marries secretly for some reason. Being unpublicized does not affect public status.

 

Okay, I think then the spot where we disagree is that I don't think that the Church is actually saying that religious are the ONLY ones in the Church who are called to be a public witness of the life of the world to come. As I see it, "Essential Elements" is saying that religious do have this call in contrast to secular institutes, but I don't think this document is actually commenting on whether or not other forms of consecrated/ordained/dedicated  life not here mentioned (e.g., consecrated virgins, hermits, societies of apostolic life, or the secular clergy) might or might not have this call as well.

 

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this. But for the sake of fruitful dialogue, I would sincerely like to know: how do you explain the Rite's frequent mention of consecrated virgins as called to be an eschatological sign? What could being called to be a "sign" mean other than a call to be a public witness?

[abrideofChrist]

Okay, I think then the spot where we disagree is that I don't think that the Church is actually saying that religious are the ONLY ones in the Church who are called to be a public witness of the life of the world to come. As I see it, "Essential Elements" is saying that religious do have this call in contrast to secular institutes, but I don't think this document is actually commenting on whether or not other forms of consecrated/ordained/dedicated  life not here mentioned (e.g., consecrated virgins, hermits, societies of apostolic life, or the secular clergy) might or might not have this call as well.

 

I'm willing to agree to disagree on this. But for the sake of fruitful dialogue, I would sincerely like to know: how do you explain the Rite's frequent mention of consecrated virgins as called to be an eschatological sign? What could being called to be a "sign" mean other than a call to be a public witness?

 

ALL consecrated persons are "eschatological signs".  Including members of secular institutes!  This means that the sign value primarily refers to the being of the person consecrated and their intrinsic value rather than their garments.  All reputable theologians agree that the words "public witness" in consecrated life are reserved to religious.  This is HOW the Church differentiates between secular vocations and religious vocations.  This isn't a matter of debate or "fruitful dialog", this is a matter that has been settled.  If the Church did not see a likeness to secular institutes with CVs, she would never have referred to the consecration of virgins in the papal document establishing secular institutes!  Also, the fact that some secular institutes wear habits and the fact that many religious don't does not negate the fact that many religious communities live like secular institutes and some secular institutes live like religious because of a fundamental confusion of their vocation. 

 

You continue to forget, even though you are training to receive a degree in canon law, your first pontifical degree, that religious life poses restrictions on legitimate ways of life.  We cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on people where the law does not impose them nor can we claim that there is somehow a "moral obligation" to do so.  If the Church does not impose limits on attire, lifestyle (A further aspect of the public nature of religious consecration is that the apostolate of religious is in some sense always corporate. Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.) then it is not obligatory nor can it be remotely construed as an essential part of the vocation.  This is very basic but you continue to refuse to acknowledge this because this undermines your theory that consecrated virginity must be modelled on religious life.  Also, as has been pointed out, if the Church did require veils and habits and all the religious life trappings you appear to desire, then she has made a fundamental mistake in admitting women in secular institutes to the consecration of virgins.  You seem incapable of appreciating the fact that the diocesan priest who belongs to a secular institute continues to own and use money even though he now has a vow of poverty.  That alone is a substantial difference from religious priests.  I get the impression from your writings that you do not even see the secular institutes as having a true and valid consecration, equal to that of religious life, which if my impression is correct, indicates you do not have a foundational understanding of that vocation.
 

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Parallels with diocesan clergy may help at times – however the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world first fits within consecrated life. It has to be understood in terms of all the forms of consecrated life. Magisterial and teaching documents that define the different kinds of consecrated life signify in defining the consecrated vocations against each other. Comparisons of consecrated virginity in the world with the vocation of diocesan priests are only illustrations – attempts to define something second hand – explaining one thing through examining another. Possibly helpful but not something that should be favored over authoritative teachings on the vocations – these teachings come first.

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church – it defines consecrated virginity. Next section – religious life. Next section – secular institutes. In defining religious life, against the sections on other forms of consecrated life that proceed and follow it – this appears:

 

925   Religious life was born in the East during the first centuries of Christianity. Lived within institutes canonically erected by the Church, it is distinguished from other forms of consecrated life by its liturgical character, public profession of the evangelical counsels, fraternal life led in common, and witness given to the union of Christ with the Church.⁴⁶⁸ (1672)

 

Possibly you will want to say that consecrated virginity fits in #925 because the Rite is liturgical – so the vocation to consecrated virginity that comes through a liturgical Rite must be included in #925 on religious life… But this is insufficient. It does not respect the definitions the Church herself gives. It does not respect the categories the Church breaks consecrated life into – in the Catechism, Code of Canon Law, in Magisterial documents.

 

Possibly you are confusing witness with public witness. Each vocation witnesses in a different way. Public witness is a type of witness belonging to religious life. The Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests does not mention public witness – it describes the witness of clergy differently from the public witness of religious in #10 of the other document. An exception would be clergy who are also religious – but diocesan clergy do not have public witness like religious clergy do. Diocesan clergy have the witness in #3 below.

 

DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

 

2. The Lord Jesus, "whom the Father has sent into the world" (Jn 10:36) has made his whole Mystical Body a sharer in the anointing of the Spirit with which he himself is anointed.(1) In him all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood; they offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and they proclaim the perfections of him who has called them out of darkness into his marvelous light.(2) Therefore, there is no member who does not have a part in the mission of the whole Body; but each one ought to hallow Jesus in his heart,(3) and in the spirit of prophecy bear witness to Jesus.(4)

 

3. Priests, who are taken from among men and ordained for men in the things that belong to God in order to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins,(15) nevertheless live on earth with other men as brothers. The Lord Jesus, the Son of God, a Man sent by the Father to men, dwelt among us and willed to become like his brethren in all things except sin.(16) The holy apostles imitated him. Blessed Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles, "set apart for the Gospel of God" (Rom 1:1) declares that he became all things to all men that he might save all.(17) Priests of the New Testament, by their vocation and ordination, are in a certain sense set apart in the bosom of the People of God. However, they are not to be separated from the People of God or from any person; but they are to be totally dedicated to the work for which the Lord has chosen them.(18) They cannot be ministers of Christ unless they be witnesses and dispensers of a life other than earthly life. But they cannot be of service to men if they remain strangers to the life and conditions of men.(19) Their ministry itself, by a special title, forbids that they be conformed to this world;(20) yet at the same time it requires that they live in this world among men. They are to live as good shepherds that know their sheep, and they are to seek to lead those who are not of this sheepfold that they, too, may hear the voice of Christ, so that there might be one fold and one shepherd.(21) To achieve this aim, certain virtues, which in human affairs are deservedly esteemed, contribute a great deal: such as goodness of heart, sincerity, strength and constancy of mind, zealous pursuit of justice, affability, and others. The Apostle Paul commends them saying: "Whatever things are true, whatever honorable, whatever just, whatever holy, whatever loving, whatever of good repute, if there be any virtue, if anything is worthy of praise, think upon these things" (Phil 4:8).(22).

[Cecilia]

An eschatological image means she points towards the life to come. Possibly you are confusing <<sign>> with something visible to the naked eye. In her consecration the consecrated virgin images the Bride of Christ – below 923 from the Catechism. Being an eschatological sign means she embodies a reality that points to Heaven – however this does not mean a consecrated virgin in the world will be recognized on the street as being a sign. Below 972 from the Catechism explains Mary as the eschatological icon of the Church. Mary is a sign without being visible to the faithful. She embodies in herself a reality that will come true for all of us. She points to this reality. However she has no <<public witness>>. Mary does not walk among us veiled and visibly distinguished in order to qualify as a <<sign>>.

 

923   â€œVirgins 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.”⁴⁶⁴ 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.”⁴⁶⁵ (1537, 1672)

 

III. Mary—Eschatological Icon of the Church

972   After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own “pilgrimage of faith,” and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There, “in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,” “in the communion of all the saints,”⁵¹⁸ the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother. (773, 829, 2853)

 

In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.⁵¹⁹

[oremus1]

by advocating the wearing of distinctive garb, the requirement to work full time for the church (rather than, say, an accountant or firefighter), a fixed horarium, in that the CV's life will be 'visibly' consecrated, perhaps actually sponsa is in favour of CV being bestowed on members of apostolic religious sisters, and perhaps she would have preferred this?

 

i am not a theologian, but i think Judith Stegman of the USACV, who was an accountant and did not wear any distinctive garb is a great role model for CVs. She worked in the secular world, was open about her vocation even in the international press and on TV and the web, visibly (she had a lamp shaped consecration ring), and she did not try to be a religious or a hidden leaven. she saw it very much like a married persons vocation. the usacv even had a convocation on the 'lived in the world' element. interestingly she was not even called 'sr' or 'reverend miss'.

 

i think phatmass should be OK that i have used her as an example since all that info is on the USACV website and known worldwide.

[God's Beloved]

Brandelynmarie and God's Beloved,

 

It is very hard for CVs when their bishops don't give them the support that the Church envisions (and actually, even the list I gave wasn't really me talking about what I see as the ideal, but rather sort of the bare minimum, drawing only on those things which the Rite and other documents mention directly). I do think that we can say it's truly unfair when CVs are left to fend for themselves in this way.

 

BUT, at the same time I still want to caution people about being too hard on the bishops! First of all, there are bishops out there who are encouraging of their CVs. Also, most bishops I've been blessed to meet personally--whether or not they were especially supportive of consecrated virgins--have stuck me as very holy, fatherly, hard-working men in general, who sincerely try their best to do the right thing in the face of all the difficult and complicated problems they're called upon to resolve as part of their ministry. 

 

And, objectively, consecrated virginity is not a very well-known or well-understood vocation, so I don't think we can fault the average bishop for not being an expert in something that's still relatively obscure. This obscurity is further complicated by the fact that a lot of bishops who are familiar with consecrated virgins have had bad experiences with them! So as much as I wish consecrated virginity was better understood and promoted, I do appreciate the fact that bishops' time is limited, and they have to make prudential judgments about which needs of their diocese to prioritize.

 

So even though of course I'm not happy when consecrated virgins suffer due to a the lack of concern from their bishops, as a CV I'm always going to be "on the bishops' side". That is, I'm always going to accord them the proper respect and prayerfully support them in their ministry.

 

Sponsa-Christi,

 

What you have written is not disputed. But it is one side of the coin. There are experiences : positive and negative. In fact there are bishops who think they are doing good by promoting the vocation and electing candidates for consecration. There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse  even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV .

 

There are priests who are very good friends but who refuse to discuss the vocation. It is usually due to 'their own' ideology.

 

In several places around the world -this vocation is being promoted to use CV as cheap labour etc.

 

It is a complex situation. But some philosopher has said [ i don't remember the name ] -that from utter chaos and complex situations -sometimes something NEW and very ORDERLY emerges or is born . I hope this painful phase in the vocation of CV will lead to something really good for the Church and the world. Sometimes it looks as if the vocation is useless .....at other times it seems to have much good. e.g.  Pope Francis is promoting the idea that people should experience the Church as a Mother.  This is also the vocation of CV . We need to reflect .....not superficially ....but in depth.....together ....in spite of our different views.

 

Supporting the Bishops and priests  through Prayer  is part of the calling  and it is always there. But my experience is different from yours.

There was a time laity complained that I was on the side of the hierarchy . Then I saw their point. They spontaneously have given me the title ' daughter of the Church'. I think my calling is indeed that . I have opted to be on the side of the poor , the marginalized , the voiceless. There are places [the existential peripheries] where the bishops and priests cannot reach ....but I can .....because i do not have the restrictions which a religious would face.

 

The love of a daughter is there for the Fathers of the local church . But the love of a mother for the voiceless is stronger in my life.

[oremus1]

Sponsa-Christi,

 

What you have written is not disputed. But it is one side of the coin. There are experiences : positive and negative. In fact there are bishops who think they are doing good by promoting the vocation and electing candidates for consecration. There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse  even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV .

 

There are priests who are very good friends but who refuse to discuss the vocation. It is usually due to 'their own' ideology.

 

In several places around the world -this vocation is being promoted to use CV as cheap labour etc.

 

It is a complex situation. But some philosopher has said [ i don't remember the name ] -that from utter chaos and complex situations -sometimes something NEW and very ORDERLY emerges or is born . I hope this painful phase in the vocation of CV will lead to something really good for the Church and the world. Sometimes it looks as if the vocation is useless .....at other times it seems to have much good. e.g.  Pope Francis is promoting the idea that people should experience the Church as a Mother.  This is also the vocation of CV . We need to reflect .....not superficially ....but in depth.....together ....in spite of our different views.

 

Supporting the Bishops and priests  through Prayer  is part of the calling  and it is always there. But my experience is different from yours.

There was a time laity complained that I was on the side of the hierarchy . Then I saw their point. They spontaneously have given me the title ' daughter of the Church'. I think my calling is indeed that . I have opted to be on the side of the poor , the marginalized , the voiceless. There are places [the existential peripheries] where the bishops and priests cannot reach ....but I can .....because i do not have the restrictions which a religious would face.

 

The love of a daughter is there for the Fathers of the local church . But the love of a mother for the voiceless is stronger in my life.

A brilliant post,

 

the problem is that some bishops and priests DO NOT WANT to understand it. 

 

for a bishop, i made a list of various practices in our country which rendered the consecration invalid, with references and protocol nrs,  the bishop just glanced at it and gave it back to me and told me to concentrate on myself and not worry about the other CVs. he also said the Rite was 'rather long', hence the delegation, and bishops cannot be expected to meet with CVs after consecration as they are too busy already .

 

in my country it is customary for the consecration to be in their parish church. but my parish priest said he did not believe in the vocation - there was not the support of a community, there was no habit, the only regulations and obligations are hazy / subjective. He says CV need a fixed horarium, accountability, and strict regulations and statutes. therefore he would not allow my consecration to be in our parish church and he says he wants no part in the ceremony. he would not even provide me with a reference. and he probably wont even come. this priest is a very lovely priest but just thinks it is a non-vocation.

 

what did anyone have as formation? how long was it?

Also, Gods Beloved - when you said "There are other bishops with every good intention who refuse even to TRY to discuss or understand the charism of OCV ." how can this be from a good intention?

Edited February 3, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, A question – I gave you quotes from the Magisterium –the Church’s authoritative teaching on Secular Institutes -- #9 – and her teaching on Religious Institutes -- #10.

 

<<SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND FOR SECULAR INSTITUTES

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AS APPLIED TO INSTITUTES DEDICATED TO WORKS OF THE APOSTOLATE>>

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_31051983_magisterium-on-religious-life_en.html

 

9. Union with Christ by consecration through profession of the counsels can be lived in the midst of the world, translated in the work of the world, and expressed by means of the world… Of themselves, the counsels do not necessarily separate people from the world… Their style of life and presence are not distinguished externally from those of their fellow Christians.

 

10. Such is not the case, however, with those whose consecration by the profession of the counsels constitutes them as religious…A certain separation from family and from professional life at the time a person enters the novitiate speaks powerfully of the absoluteness of God… Religious presence is visible, affecting ways of acting, attire, and style of life.

 

How do you explain your comment that the Church’s teaching --in #9, bolded -- only applies to 95% of secular institutes? – I do not think this can be justified – I do not think we can choose what in Magisterial documents we will abide by and what we will explain away and disregard. Do you see why your 95% comment gives this impression – that if some secular institutes would rather live their vocation as religious institutes – found in #10 – then they are free to do so? They are free to disregard an authoritative teaching from the Magisterium?

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Another question --what do you think regarding diocesan priests and poverty – they do not take a vow of poverty. In order to live the vocation radically – do you think a diocesan priest should have specific clothes besides his clerics – should he wear sweaters, socks, coats that are only dark colors? Grey, black, brown…  Should a diocesan priest report to his bishop how he will live like Christ in a spirit of poverty – is this ideal? Should he not spend more than a certain amount of money on a watch or shoes? Are there self-imposed norms that a diocesan priest should follow that would make him worthy of praise – of a praise greater than diocesan priests who neglect such self-imposed norms? Can we say that all diocesan priests should – ideally -- aim to only have a pair of boots, a pair of dress shoes, and a pair of tennis shoes? That anything they buy should be plain and inexpensive and simple? Should he not spend money on a cap or sweatshirt with a sports logo on it – this might be considered frivolous and unnecessary? Should he only get his hair cut so many times a year?

 

There is nowhere in Church teaching that outlines these things – or restricts diocesan priests in these decisions – however, do you believe to be radically holy and to really live like Christ in a spirit of poverty a diocesan priest should restrict himself in these kinds of ways? If so -- should he wear a symbol that shows the world he takes the spirit of poverty radically seriously – in order to be a witness to others? Possibly might he adopt wearing a rosary from his belt as a witness to others -- to show everyone that he lives radically the spirit of evangelical poverty?

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

How do you explain your comment that the Church’s teaching --in #9, bolded -- only applies to 95% of secular institutes? – I do not think this can be justified – I do not think we can choose what in Magisterial documents we will abide by and what we will explain away and disregard. Do you see why your 95% comment gives this impression – that if some secular institutes would rather live their vocation as religious institutes – found in #10 – then they are free to do so? They are free to disregard an authoritative teaching from the Magisterium?

 

I really wasn't trying to state an opinion on what secular institutes should or should not do. I was only observing that at least a small handful of lay secular institute members do wear some sort of distinctive clothing at least some of the time. Although I would agree that this is very unusual for secular institutes, presumably it is something which would be included in these communities' constitutions, which are approved by the Church. I certainly wasn't trying to argue that secular institutes can disregard explicit directives of the magisterium.

 

In any case, for a bit of context, "Essential Elements" was written as an attempt to correct some of the misinterpretations of the nature of religious life which were occurring in the decades after Vatican II. I.e., this document was really intended to provided directives to religious specifically. It does mention secular institutes briefly, but this is only to provide a background with which to contrast religious life. In other words, while this document gave a very brief and general description of secular institutes, it was not written for the purpose of providing directives to them.

 

Also, I do want to highlight again that "Essential Elements" does not mention consecrated virgins at all. So while this document might still provide us with some helpful insights for understanding consecrated life in general, it cannot be read as actually providing norms for consecrated virgins' way of life.

[Cecilia]

Sponsa Christi, Possibly you are mixed up on the nature of Magisterial documents – respectfully -- you cannot pick and choose how you will apply the teachings in a Magisterial document. Possibly you do not understand the impression this gives -- that you are willing to accept only those items that support your hopes for various vocations. I do not think a theologian or other expert would comment and say a Magisterial document that clarifies religious life -- and does so by teaching the faithful how religious institutes differ from secular institutes -- is not really teaching anything about secular institutes. The document is giving directives for both forms of vocations. Do you have a spiritual director or your bishop that you could pose your interpretation to -- probably seeking their advice would assist in understanding these Church teachings... – I suggest this because you are confident in your interpretation that the document does not give directives to secular institutes – but this interpretation is not justified. Possibly you could ask this question in the scholar section of the forum?

To address the vocation to consecrated virginity lived in the world -- we cannot disregard the Church's teaching on secular institutes -- when these members may receive the consecration. The Church's teaching on secular institutes will aid us -- authoritatively -- in understanding the virginal consecration. This does not mean the vocation to consecrated virginity in the world can only be understood in terms of secular institutes -- however it means that we cannot disregard secular institutes when that vocation is permitted to subsist in conjunction with the virginal consecration. Oremus1 comments that a consecrated virgin in the world may live her vocation less like leaven -- this may fit her vocation as Christ's spouse -- however she is also entirely permitted to live it like leaven -- she is permitted to live it either way. The Church's teaching on secular institutes -- and the fact that members of institutes may be consecrated -- makes this obvious.

[oremus1]

I dont understand how a member of a secular institute can be consecrated by entry into their secular insitiute, then also recieve the consecration of virgins. similarly a religious, whom some bloggers like Stillsong Hermatige, consider to be consecrated by virtue of their religious profession, can additionally recieve the consecration of virigns. Surely you can only be consecrated once?? and you either ARE a consecrated person or not?

Edited February 3, 2014 by oremus1

[Cecilia]

I commented above with the quotations #9 and #10 from the << SACRED CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS AND FOR SECULAR INSTITUTES: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIFE AS APPLIED TO INSTITUTES DEDICATED TO WORKS OF THE APOSTOLATE>>.

 

The below is the conclusion of that document --

 

These norms, based on traditional teaching, the revised Code of Canon Law and current praxis, do not exhaust the Church's provision for religious life. They indicate, however, her genuine concern that the life lived by institutes dedicated to works of the apostolate should develop ever more richly as a gift of God to the Church and to the human family. In drawing up this text, which the Holy Father has approved, the Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes wishes to help those institutes to assimilate the Church's revised provision for them and to put it in its doctrinal context. May they find in it a firm encouragement to the closer following of Christ in hope and joy in their consecrated lives.

 

From the Vatican, on the Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 31 May 1983.

 

#9 – the paragraph with the directives for secular institutes – is part of the norms set forth in this teaching document. The document gives many directives for religious institutes – with some directives for secular institutes – in order to teach the differences between the two.