'Singleness'

[bardegaulois]

 Those baptised are called specifically to chaste celibacy in the laity unless God calls them to one of the other states in life i.e. Holy Orders, Marriage or Consecrated life (incorporates religious life, consecrated virginity, hermits under Canon 603 and secular institutes).

​So then are you arguing that "chaste celibacy in the laity," as you call it, is the general vocation, of which all other vocations and states of life are particular expressions? And if it be general, so correlated in your thinking with baptism as it is, then you must be implying that it cannot therefore be a particular vocation, as it cannot be both the general category as well as a specific example. Are you so implying?

[BarbTherese]

​So then are you arguing that "chaste celibacy in the laity," as you call it, is the general vocation, of which all other vocations and states of life are particular expressions? And if it be general, so correlated in your thinking with baptism as it is, then you must be implying that it cannot therefore be a particular vocation, as it cannot be both the general category as well as a specific example. Are you so implying?

​All due respect, bardegaulois,  but I think we are now starting to go round in circles.  I have quoted quite a few Church Documents that state that the laity is a vocation and if one disagrees with what The Church states, then our thinking can never meet.

Everyone has the general call to holiness which is inclusive in all vocations.  The particular call is to that road one is invited to take to holiness.  The particular road once one is baptised is lay celibacy and to follow Jesus and His Gospel - in accord with what The Church tells us about this vocation and call including what  Canon Law states on the Laity.  We might be called to another road or vocation and taken out of the laity to undertake a special state of life in The Church  or we may not - and other roads or vocations contain other duties to that of the laity.  ("Vocation and Mission of The Laity in The Church and in The World"  "Christifideles Laici" John Paul II Dec 1988)

We are not baptised willy nilly as it were.  We are baptised because we are receiving a vocation and call from God.

 

DOGMATIC CONSTITUION ON  THE CHURCH "What specifically characterizes the laity is their secular nature. It is true that those in holy orders can at times be engaged in secular activities, and even have a secular profession. But they are by reason of their particular vocation especially and professedly ordained to the sacred ministry. Similarly, by their state in life, religious give splendid and striking testimony that the world cannot be transformed and offered to God without the spirit of the beatitudes. But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God. They live in the world, that is, in each and in all of the secular professions and occupations. They live in the ordinary circumstances of family and social life, from which the very web of their existence is woven. They are called there by God that by exercising their proper function and led by the spirit of the Gospel they may work for the sanctification of the world from within as a leaven."

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

​So then are you arguing that "chaste celibacy in the laity," as you call it, is the general vocation, of which all other vocations and states of life are particular expressions? And if it be general, so correlated in your thinking with baptism as it is, then you must be implying that it cannot therefore be a particular vocation, as it cannot be both the general category as well as a specific example. Are you so implying?

Holy Orders, Consecrated Life and also Marriage are special states of life in The Church and since they are calls to holiness (general category) in a particular manner (specific category), they all fall into both the general and specific categories............as does the laity.  Everyone has a vocation - and it will be either Holy Orders, Consecrated Life, Marriage or Chaste Lay Celibacy (single life).

"  "general and specific vocations" are elements of personal vocations."  Zenit https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/ZVOCATIO.HTM

Edited May 5, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[bardegaulois]

Holy Orders, Consecrated Life and also Marriage are special states of life in The Church and since they are calls to holiness (general category) in a particular manner (specific category), they all fall into both the general and specific categories............as does the laity.  Everyone has a vocation - and it will be either Holy Orders, Consecrated Life, Marriage or Chaste Lay Celibacy (single life).

​So now you are saying that the general vocation, coming through baptism, is not to lay celibacy but to holiness, something that accords more with every catechism I've read, and that the clerical, religious or consecrated, and married states are specific vocations into which one might be called to live out that general vocation. I'm not disagreeing with you so far. However, you do not indicate lay celibacy as a specific vocation. Why is that? You began asking if lay celibacy was an official vocation; we need first to determine what it is specifically as a vocation, if it is a vocation, before we can even address the question of its officiality.

With respect, I think the questions that others and I are asking here are very direct, and, as this is a matter about which many are quite dubious, ought to be asked and discussed in order to have a better and more fruitful understanding. If you don't want this to go around in circles, perhaps you could answer them somewhat more directly?

[BarbTherese]

At times you are either misquoting and/or misunderstanding what I have posted.

I have already quoted Church Documents clearly and emphatically stating that the chaste celibate state in the laity is indeed a vocation and included in these documents are the duties of this vocation. If it is asserted that the chaste celibate state in the laity is not a vocation -  then it is contrary to what The Church states.  If you want to disagree with The Church, your problem.  If "others are dubious" about chaste lay celibacy as a vocation, then they too are disagreeing with The Church and I sure know in which I would invest and whose opinions I would dismiss.

 I do not intend to go round in circles.

You began asking if lay celibacy was an official vocation

If you you read my opening post again - this is only one statement where you have misread and misunderstood my posts  since I never asked a question at all -  and it had nothing at all to do with the chaste lay state as an official vocation other than in passing and as a statement - no question posed at all.  It was related to private vows and I did not pose a question, rather I made a statement.

 

 

 

[BarbTherese]

​So now you are saying that the general vocation, coming through baptism, is not to lay celibacy but to holiness, something that accords more with every catechism I've read, and that the clerical, religious or consecrated, and married states are specific vocations into which one might be called to live out that general vocation

 According to the Constitution of The Church, all mankind is called to unity with Christ (holiness) - baptism establishes the baptised person in the vocational chaste celibate lay state in which they remain unless called to another state of life.  Some might be so called, others not - and if not called into another state of life, their personal vocation continues as the chaste celibate lay state.

You statement in the above quotation box is a misquote - if, I am presuming only, that in the above you do mean The Catholic Catechism :

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#898

898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. . . . It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer."⁴³¹

Edited May 6, 2015 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

​

With respect, I think the questions that others and I are asking here are very direct, and, as this is a matter about which many are quite dubious, ought to be asked and discussed in order to have a better and more fruitful understanding. If you don't want this to go around in circles, perhaps you could answer them somewhat more directly?

Problems with accessing Phatmass normally.  I hope this will post ok.

It is a few days since anyone posted other than you and I, bardegaulois ............ and with respect I'm not going back over old posts and posts which I have already addressed.  I am presuming that other members who have dropped out of this thread, and not posted again for a few days, have their questions are answered to their satisfaction.

Whoever wants to disagree with what The Church is teaching, not my problem and I am not going to take it on board nor travel in a circle. It is a complete waste of time - I have done what I can quoting several Church Documents as well as the Catholic Catechism to support my own concepts.  Nowhere to date has any poster into this thread quoted where The Church states that only Holy Orders, Consecrated Life and Matrimony are vocations - and that the chaste celibate state in the Laity is not; whereas I  have quoted Church Documents and the Catechism which state that the chaste celibate lay state (single life) is indeed a vocation and what the duties of the vocation actually are. Therefore, opinions to the contrary are personal opinions only to which all are entitled.  I however adhere to what The Church teaches.

​

[bardegaulois]

You have only spoken about the general vocation of the baptized (encompassing all Christians) and the general vocation of the laity (encompassing the married as well), with ample and perhaps excessive citations. You have not, however, addressed any definition of the specific vocation to lay celibacy, its rights, its duties, and so forth, beyond those general either to all Christians or to all laymen. If you wish to progress on this issue, that is what you'll need to do. Our attempts to shepherd you through this with leading questions just seem to be agitating you. If you're unable or unwilling to do this, then please do admit it to yourself and understand that you are talking about either the vocation of all the baptized or the vocation of the laity, not the specific vocation of the lay celibate.

[BarbTherese]

 

   

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
OF
HIS HOLINESS
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE VOCATION AND THE MISSION
OF THE LAY FAITHFUL
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html

  Precisely with this in mind the Synod Fathers said: "The secular character of the lay faithful is not therefore to be defined only in a sociological sense, but most especially in a theological sense. The term secular must be understood in light of the act of God the creator and redeemer, who has handed over the world to women and men, so that they may participate in the work of creation, free creation from the influence of sin and sanctify themselves in marriage or the celibate life, in a family, in a profession and in the various activities of society"(39).                                                           

​

[bardegaulois]

Yes, the laity has a vocation, and laypersons can be either married or celibate. We established that long ago. Let me ask my question again, as directly as I possibly can.

I am asking about the specific vocation of the lay celibate, not about the more general vocation of the laity. Married persons are laypersons as well, as yet their duties are quite more specific than the general vocation of the laity, as I'm sure we all know. Please tell me the "definition of the specific vocation to lay celibacy, its rights, its duties, and so forth, beyond those general either to all Christians or to all laymen."

If I'm not being clear, then I'd ask that someone observing this conversation kindly let me know. Thank you.

[BarbTherese]

I cannot work out, bardegaulois, whether you do not understand at all my previous posts, or whether you are having a complete lend of me***.  I find personally the tone of your posts at times arrogant, condescending and patronising, dismissive - again, I have no idea whether it is simply your way, your nature, or whether again you are having a lend of me.  I find it near on impossible to believe that you have not understood my previous posts and am tempted to wonder "is he/she really that dense?". 

If you want to understand what the rights and duties of all groups or vocations in the Laity, including the vocation of celibate laity in the 'single life', and for whatever reasons that which I have previously posted is not clear to you, then perhaps Canon Law might be clearer:

Code of Canon Law: "The Obligations and Rights of All The Christian Faithful"

If I'm not being clear, then I'd ask that someone observing this conversation kindly let me know. Thank you.

Looking for backup, b?

________________

***"Lend of me" is basically an Australian saying meaning more or less : "for one's own amusement".

[bardegaulois]

"If you want to understand what the rights and duties of all groups or vocations in the Laity, including the vocation of celibate laity in the 'single life'..."

I know what they are already. But these are shared with the married who are also laypersons. Are there any rights or duties specific to celibate laypersons that are not shared with other laypersons or with other faithful, which is to say, rights and duties proper specifically to that state and to no other state? That is what I have been asking, hopefully as clearly, directly, and precisely as possible.

[BarbTherese]

In each of the three states of life in The Church i.e. Holy Orders or clerical, Consecrated State and finally the Laity, their can occur different vocations with different duties.  This does seem obvious to me and covered previously with different wording.

All as I have stated previously, marriage is a special state within the Laity with its own special duties.  Married people are called to marital chastity with special unique duties as apposed to those in the Laity called to the celibate state.  Basically, married people are called to marital chastity and the other group are called to lay celibacy in the Laity.  Certainly, the married have special duties by virtue of their vocation that do not pertain to chaste celibacy.  What are the special duties of chaste celibacy - this is covered in the duties of the laity in the various Church Documents and Canon Law with the clear special or unique obligation to celibate chastity.  In the Laity, if one is not married, then one is called vocationally to chaste celibacy and the duties of the lay state.  

This could be compared with Holy Orders or the clerical state.  Secular priests are not called to the evangelical counsels as are religious priests, who have the special duties of the consecrated state in poverty, chastity and obedience - as well as the priesthood. Our hierarchy who are in Holy Orders would have different duties again.  Another comparison within a state of life is the Consecrated State.  Within the consecrated state, for example, their are religious bound to the evangelical counsels, and then there are secular institutes which while bound to the evangelical counsels have different and special duties to those in religious life. Two other vocations within the Consecrated State are the heremitical life and consecrated virgins - each with their own special duties.

 

 

[BarbTherese]

I know what they are already. But these are shared with the married who are also laypersons.

 

 Of course!  Therefore, the two groups in the Laity share duties - with the married having additional duties.  Certainly, if one is not married then one has the 'additional' duty of celibate chastity.

[bardegaulois]

So, to clarify, you are saying that there are no duties, rights, or responsibilities of celibate laypersons above and beyond those incumbent upon all laypersons, unlike those in the married state. Is this correct?