Confused About Evangelical Counsels or Counsels of Perfection

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirach2 said:
I think you may be reading far too much into this whole concept. It all depends on one’s vocation, and we know for certain that married couples may become saints. Recent canonizations affirmed that beyond a doubt. Both St. Therese’s parents were canonized. St. Gianna Molla was married and her husband attended her canonization. :clapping:
Let’s not forget St. Joachim and St. Anne, the blessed parents of Mary.
Other married saints became widows and entered later upon a new vocation, but marriage was never an impediment to sanctity.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, I’m not saying that marriage is always and for all people a guarantee that they would not reach heaven. I am just proposing (not even directly saying here, I suppose) that marriage can impede the path to holiness for many because of the issues I mentioned earlier and it is likely thus considered an objectively inferior vocation when compared with celibacy undertaken for the Lord’s sake. I am proposing that this may be what Trent was saying when it declared celibacy superior to marriage, but, again, how can we know for certain. And even if we can guess at what was meant, as I asked earlier, in what way infallible are we to interpret these words in later times?
 
MysticMissMisty said:
I am proposing that this may be what Trent was saying when it declared celibacy superior to marriage, but, again, how can we know for certain. And even if we can guess at what was meant, as I asked earlier, in what way infallible are we to interpret these words in later times?
Click to expand...
This is what Trent wrote:
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Well, even Jesus said in Mt. 19:12, “There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It is a vocation and a call from the Lord, and for those who embrace it for love of God will no doubt, if they are faithful, be very pleasing to God.

We cannot look down upon those who marry, if that is how God calls them, as if they are settling for something less than perfection.

Trent’s canons were in response to the errors of the Reformation. I do not know what this particular canon addressed, but we do know, as I said before, that anyone who by his intention is not living a response to God’s love, will fail, whether in a celibate or married vocation.

For further study, this page has a lot of good references to help you understand the present teachings of the church, which are developed much further than Trent.
 
Sirach2 said:
This is what Trent wrote:
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Well, even Jesus said in Mt. 19:12, “There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” It is a vocation and a call from the Lord, and for those who embrace it for love of God will no doubt, if they are faithful, be very pleasing to God.

We cannot look down upon those who marry, if that is how God calls them, as if they are settling for something less than perfection.

Trent’s canons were in response to the errors of the Reformation. I do not know what this particular canon addressed, but we do know, as I said before, that anyone who by his intention is not living a response to God’s love, will fail, whether in a celibate or married vocation.

For further study, this page has a lot of good references to help you understand the present teachings of the church, which are developed much further than Trent.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the resources and the insight.

The “he that is able” has always rather disturbed me. Again, I think that many people are “able” to receive the teaching (able to carry it out, even though it may be challenging). But, what of those who can but yet strongly desire to have a life partner by their side? If they are still technically “able” to give that up, should they? What if they are already attracted to someone and long for a future with them? Perhaps Jesus is saying that, “He who feels called to this life and is able to bear it, let him do so”? I would be interested to know how folks here and how other commentators/theologians/etc. take and have taken the “who is able” statement in our biblical passage in question.
 
Catechism

915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple.

The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.454

916 The state of consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a “more intimate” consecration, rooted in Baptism and dedicated totally to God.455 In the consecrated life, Christ’s faithful, moved by the Holy Spirit, propose to follow Christ more nearly, to give themselves to God who is loved above all and, pursuing the perfection of charity in the service of the Kingdom, to signify and proclaim in the Church the glory of the world to come.456

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#915
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Thanks for the resources and the insight.

The “he that is able” has always rather disturbed me. Again, I think that many people are “able” to receive the teaching (able to carry it out, even though it may be challenging). But, what of those who can but yet strongly desire to have a life partner by their side? If they are still technically “able” to give that up, should they? What if they are already attracted to someone and long for a future with them? Perhaps Jesus is saying that, “He who feels called to this life and is able to bear it, let him do so”? I would be interested to know how folks here and how other commentators/theologians/etc. take and have taken the “who is able” statement in our biblical passage in question.
Click to expand...
God leads us inwardly through desire and confirms it with His peace. Psalm 37:4
I’m not a theologian, but I think I understand enough about His guidance to know that we can rest with certainty when our path is clearly anointed with His blessing. If a person feels an attraction to someone and longs for a future with them, then their heart would be divided and perhaps saddened if they embraced the celibate life without an equal or greater attraction to it. God desires our heart and our love in His service, rather than have us drudgingly force our will to embrace a lifestyle that produces no real fruit for one’s life, even though it may be the highest of callings.
 
Keep in mind these phrases.
*
Universal call to Holiness.*

Personal vocation.
 
All Christians living in Christ are saints - and are called too to be more holy.

There is a universal call to holiness (everyone of the baptized).

The perfection of charity is for all.

There are various* states of life *for living the Christian life.

An important key in discernment is what ones “personal vocation” is - which embraces the state of life they are called to as well as other aspects.

Sam’s personal vocation is to be married and to be a doctor.

John’s personal vocation is to become a Carthusian Monk

Albert’s personal vocation is to be married and to be a tertiary.

Judy’s personal vocation is to be a Nun.

Mary’s personal vocation is to be married and to embrace a life of scientific research…

etc.
 
The various Evangelical counsels are means towards the perfection of charity.

Not all are called personally to live this or that evangelical counsel in this particular way.

There are various ways towards the perfection of charity.
 
Thanks, again, guys, for all the help!

The quote from the current Catechism apparently does emphasize that religious life is “one” way of experiencing greater intimacy with God, but does not lay emphasis on its superiority in any way. Still, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is not superior, in the sense of the firefighter vs. the dancer (see above). It is also interesting that the “perfection of charity” is for all and, apparently is een to be able to reached in various ways including the religious life.
 
Bookcat said:
The various Evangelical counsels are means towards the perfection of charity.

Not all are called personally to live this or that evangelical counsel in this particular way.

There are various ways towards the perfection of charity.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Kind of what I was getting at, I think, when I proposed that Christ’s counsel to the rich young ruler may have been more speciic to his situation than necessarily to be taken as a statement for all.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Indeed. Kind of what I was getting at, I think, when I proposed that Christ’s counsel to the rich young ruler may have been more speciic to his situation than necessarily to be taken as a statement for all.
Click to expand...
👍

And if you remember, this rich young ruler went away sad. That’s my meaning. If one is sad when they embrace a particular evangelical counsel or state of life, it will not produce the fruit of charity. As Jesus said, their heart is far from Me.
 
Sirach2 said:
👍

And if you remember, this rich young ruler went away sad. That’s my meaning. If one is sad when they embrace a particular evangelical counsel or state of life, it will not produce the fruit of charity. As Jesus said, their heart is far from Me.
Click to expand...
Yes, perhaps he went away sad because he was not truly embracing the calling that Jesus had on his life. He walked away from that calling, the things of the world for him exercising too great an influence. Also why it is emphasized how Christ looked on him with his own sadness/pity.compassion.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Thanks, again, guys, for all the help!

The quote from the current Catechism apparently does emphasize that religious life is “one” way of experiencing greater intimacy with God, but does not lay emphasis on its superiority in any way. Still, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it is not superior, in the sense of the firefighter vs. the dancer (see above). It is also interesting that the “perfection of charity” is for all and, apparently is een to be able to reached in various ways including the religious life.
Click to expand...
Yes it is not that such is not “superior” or higher. Sure.

But the perfection of charity is for all Christians to tend towards.

Distinguish objective realities of states of life and means towards perfection - and subjective holiness.

A Janitor may end up more holy than a Carmelite nun in reality.

A Tertiary may end up more holy and like Christ and a Religious of their Order.

A little child may be a Saint (big S) where as a hermit may not.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Yes, perhaps he went away sad because he was not truly embracing the calling that Jesus had on his life. He walked away from that calling, the things of the world for him exercising too great an influence. Also why it is emphasized how Christ looked on him with his own sadness/pity.compassion.
Click to expand...
Just a small observation in Mark’s gospel (not in the others):
“And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these [the commandments] have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”

If the man continued to keep the commandments, even though he was not strong enough to accept Jesus’ deeper invitation, that is salvific. He will still be “loved by Him.” I hope we don’t misconstrue Jesus’ meaning here, thinking the young man lost his salvation through his weakness that did not enable him to follow Jesus more deeply.
 
And, now, I’ve been thinking of where Paul states that marriage is a distraction from completely serving God, as one is divided between the things of the world and of God.

There, it would seem that Paul wishes that “all men” were like himsel – celibate. Yet, he says that all men have their gifts. He seems at first to want to apply celibacy to all, despite the callings of some to marriage and some to celibacy. He seems to see benefit and even preference in it to all and not just to those who are “called” to it. And, yes, I know that he states that such is his opinion, though he does seem to contradict himself in this. (He also states that, even though this is his opinion, he does have the Holy Spirit, seeming to try to lend more weight to it. We must also not discount that he is an Apostle.) He seems, though, even to contradict God in wishing that all men were called as he is, even though he very shortly thereafter states that all men have their own gifts (presumably with marriage and celibacy in mind specifically). Even if we do discount this as Paul’s (biased?) opinion, we must remember that, yes, he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and, yes, he is an Apostle, and, yes, this did make it into an inspired text. So, then, how are we to understand Paul’s statement of “opinion” here in the context of most of our understanding of how vocations work (that on vocation is not for everyone)?
 
MysticMissMisty said:
And, now, I’ve been thinking of where Paul states that marriage is a distraction from completely serving God, as one is divided between the things of the world and of God.

There, it would seem that Paul wishes that “all men” were like himsel – celibate. Yet, he says that all men have their gifts. He seems at first to want to apply celibacy to all, despite the callings of some to marriage and some to celibacy. He seems to see benefit and even preference in it to all and not just to those who are “called” to it. And, yes, I know that he states that such is his opinion, though he does seem to contradict himself in this. (He also states that, even though this is his opinion, he does have the Holy Spirit, seeming to try to lend more weight to it. We must also not discount that he is an Apostle.) He seems, though, even to contradict God in wishing that all men were called as he is, even though he very shortly thereafter states that all men have their own gifts (presumably with marriage and celibacy in mind specifically). Even if we do discount this as Paul’s (biased?) opinion, we must remember that, yes, he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and, yes, he is an Apostle, and, yes, this did make it into an inspired text. So, then, how are we to understand Paul’s statement of “opinion” here in the context of most of our understanding of how vocations work (that on vocation is not for everyone)?
Click to expand...
Again - this is where* personal vocation *comes in.

It is not only the objective reality of the state in life that one looks to…but what is ones particular vocation. Or as Paul might put it if you discussed it with him today - ones particular gift.

Certainly not everyone is to embrace celibacy…

Some are called to celibacy in varied forms of Christian life.

Many are called to marriage as a vocation in Christian life.
 
Bookcat said:
Again - this is where* personal vocation *comes in.

It is not only the objective reality of the state in life that one looks to…but what is ones particular vocation. Or as Paul might put it if you discussed it with him today - ones particular gift.

Certainly not everyone is to embrace celibacy…

Some are called to celibacy in varied forms of Christian life.

Many are called to marriage as a vocation in Christian life.
Click to expand...
I’m still wondering why he would say that he wished “all men” were as he was. Could he actually mean “all men who were in his kind of intense, direct, religious service”, or should we take the “all men” as truly a blanket statement applying to absolutely everyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top