Consecrated Virgin

[Mt_28_19_20]

You seem to want to pick a fight on the issue of celibacy and consecrated virginity so go to the apologetic forums. Those there will certainly help you to understand.

Those who are open to the truth here it is in a nut shell:

SACRA VIRGINITAS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRA.HTM

1. This doctrine of the excellence of ***virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state ***was, as **We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; **so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove **these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth. **

If you don’t like the questions in response to what others post, don’t assume that is picking a fight. Someone said the celibacy/consecrated virginity is a higher state, and my question is whether certain persons who were married are thus in a lower state than consecrated virgins.

The question remains as an application to the ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON CONSECRATED VIRGINITY MARCH 25, 1954, you posted above.

Those with a vocation and considering a vocation should be able to help me understand by answering some of my questions as best as they are able.

"Was Peter, our first Pope, in a lower state, since we are told he had a mother-in-law?

Was Pope Alexander VI, in a lower state, having four children outside of marriage?

Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?

Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?"

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Of couse it is no guarrenty. It is easier though because of the graces available to their state.( there are more canonized celibate saints than married, unfortunately) The normal religious goes to mass every day, confesses 2x or 4x a month, has time to pray and do apostolates of charity. There is just more grace to be had. Not to mention that every action whether sweeping the floor or washing windows is not only meritorious in the act itself but it is also an act of religion as St. Thomas explains in my quote above.

So a married Opus Dei member who goes to daily Mass, confession several times a month, prays several times a day, goes to daily adoration, consecrates their work to God and service to others also will have more grace to be had without being celibate? Not to mention that every action whether feeding the baby, changing the diaper, cooking dinner, driving or walking the children to their activities, helping their children with their homework, waking up to feed their infants, commuting to work, and working to support their family, is not not only meritorious in the act itself but is also an act of religion?

Michael

 

[batteddy]

Not to mention that every action whether sweeping the floor or washing windows is not only meritorious in the act itself but it is also an act of religion as St. Thomas explains in my quote above.

One reason why I feel called to religious life. In my daily life…I feel like…I am restricted to religion on Sundays and my daily rosary because of school and chores and stuff. But under religious obedience, every action becomes an act of religion.

 

[batteddy]

So a married Opus Dei member who goes to daily Mass, confession several times a month, prays several times a day, goes to daily adoration, consecrates their work to God and service to others also will have more grace to be had without being celibate?

All that will indeed add a lot more graces.

But the fact still stands: celibacy is a higher state objectively.

That doesnt mean the person will be more holy. It’s just like how a bishop is a higher state than a priest or deacon. But that certainly doesnt mean that bishops are necessarily more holy than priests or deacons.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

One reason why I feel called to religious life. In my daily life…I feel like…I am restricted to religion on Sundays and my daily rosary because of school and chores and stuff. But under religious obedience, every action becomes an act of religion.

Any action can be offered up to God in love and obedience. Including lovingly changing an infant son or daughter’s diaper, caring for a sick spouse, being a waitress, truck driver, bus driver, etc… We can offer all we do up to God, regardless of vocation. Isn’t it great that everyone can make every action an act of religion?

Michael

 

[batteddy]

But it is not an act of religious obedience, which is of a higher type of merit.

I was told this by many priests, both diocesan and religious.

One reason why I lament that some of the fasting disciplines were loosened. Because I was told that, of course, we can add more on our own. But I was told also that stuff done of our own initiative like that is not nearly as valuable as stuff done out of obedience to the Church or a lawful Superior. So when the Church changes it’s precepts from “command” to merely “encourage,” she is actually lessening the merit of those acts.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

All that will indeed add a lot more graces.

But the fact still stands: celibacy is a higher state objectively.

That doesnt mean the person will be more holy. It’s just like how a bishop is a higher state than a priest or deacon. But that certainly doesnt mean that bishops are necessarily more holy than priests or deacons.

So a higher state, yet not more holy?

More dedicate to God with undivided attention, yet not more holy?

Mt 18:4 "“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Mk 9:34 “But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.”

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

But it is not an act of religious obedience, which is of a higher type of merit.

I was told this by many priests, both diocesan and religious.

One reason why I lament that some of the fasting disciplines were loosened. Because I was told that, of course, we can add more on our own. But I was told also that stuff done of our own initiative like that is not nearly as valuable as stuff done out of obedience to the Church or a lawful Superior. So when the Church changes it’s precepts from “command” to merely “encourage,” she is actually lessening the merit of those acts.

So if someone refrains from eating meat on Fridays in lent, that is more merit than someone who spends hours with a sick friend or relative out of obedience to Jesus telling us to love one another? Or someone who gives up something so that their children can enjoy something? Since the Church “commands”, that intrisically gives more merit?

Michael

 

[valient_Lucy]

So a higher state, yet not more holy?

Yes. As a previous poster pointed out, a bishop has more authority and sacramental powers than a parish priest. Yet that does not mean that a bishop is holier than a priest. Being in a higher state does not mean a person is necessarily going to be holy.

 

[napad]

So if someone refrains from eating meat on Fridays in lent, that is more merit than someone who spends hours with a sick friend or relative out of obedience to Jesus telling us to love one another? Or someone who gives up something so that their children can enjoy something? Since the Church “commands”, that intrisically gives more merit?

Michael

Are you even trying to understand?
Do you agree that it is dogmaticly taught that consecrated virginity is a high state of life, please a simple yes or no, then you can expalin why.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Are you even trying to understand?
Do you agree that it is dogmaticly taught that consecrated virginity is a high state of life, please a simple yes or no, then you can expalin why.

Are you trying not to address my questions in post 21 and 22?

I have not denied that it is taught that consecrated virginity is a higher state of life. Whether that is at the level of dogma, I don’t know. If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.

You may ask yourself the same question, “Are you even trying to understand?”

Who is more important, the person who labors to make an endotracheal tube, or the doctor who inserts an endotracheal tube to treat a trauma patient? Which is the higher state? Who is humbled without the other? Do you understand? We are all humbled by God, ALL of us need Jesus for salvation, This higher state, lower state…does God really look at consecrated virginity as a “higher state” than marriage live as best as able according to God’s teachings?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Yes. As a previous poster pointed out, a bishop has more authority and sacramental powers than a parish priest. Yet that does not mean that a bishop is holier than a priest. Being in a higher state does not mean a person is necessarily going to be holy.

So then Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, Joseph, etc, were of a lower state than consecrated virgins?

Michael

 

[napad]

Whether that is at the level of dogma, I don’t know.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2118118:

This statement shows your lack of trying to understand. I posted a clear statement by PiusXII saying:

(edited out document quote)

LilyM even gave you the TRENT CANON

in her/his post.
So until you can agree it is a dogma how can we have a discusion with you because you dont seem to understand plain English.

I said "I have not denied that it is taught that consecrated virginity is a higher state of life. Whether that is at the level of dogma, I don’t know. If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.

So:

1. I did not deny that it is taught
2. I did not go back and reread, so said I do not know.
3. I then said, “If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.” This was allowing the possibility that it was dogma. Again, never denied. Just another example of not affirming something I am not sure of and have not yet double checked.

That does not necessarily imply that I am not trying to understand.

This all is very good. I can now say with confidence that it is a dogma. And I can say I disagree with consecrated virginity being a higher state than marriage.

**So now, that we have both agreed that it is dogma, my statement remains: “If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.” **

If these questions are two difficult for you to look at and answer, please refrain from venting your frustration on me with uncharitable statements toward me such as : “This statement shows your lack of trying to understand.” and “how can we have a discusion with you because you dont seem to understand plain English”

Michael

 

[napad]

napad;2118237:

This all is very good. I can now say with confidence that it is a dogma. And I can say I disagree with consecrated virginity being a higher state than marriage.

Just so things are clear.
You agree that there is a dogma that consecrated virginity is a higher state.

But, you think that this dogma is not correct.
Yes or no?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2118309:

napad;2118237:

Just so things are clear.
You agree that there is a dogma that consecrated virginity is a higher state.

But, you think that this dogma is not correct.
Yes or no?

Do you need me to say it twice? Here it is again:

"This all is very good. I can now say with confidence that it is a dogma. And I can say I disagree with consecrated virginity being a higher state than marriage.

So now, that we have both agreed that it is dogma, my statement remains: “If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.”

If these questions are two difficult for you to look at and answer, please refrain from venting your frustration on me with uncharitable statements toward me such as : “This statement shows your lack of trying to understand.” and “how can we have a discusion with you because you dont seem to understand plain English”"

Care to stop stalling and answer? How many times and ways to I have to say yes before you are able to answer?

**"Was Peter, our first Pope, in a lower state, since we are told he had a mother-in-law?

Was Pope Alexander VI, in a lower state, having four children outside of marriage?

Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?

Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?"**

?

 

[napad]

napad;2118999:

Mt 28 19_20;2118309:

Do you need me to say it twice? Here it is again:

"This all is very good. I can now say with confidence that it is a dogma. And I can say I disagree with consecrated virginity being a higher state than marriage.

So now, that we have both agreed that it is dogma, my statement remains: “If it is dogma, and you agree, then it should not be difficult to answer post 21 and 22.”

If these questions are two difficult for you to look at and answer, please refrain from venting your frustration on me with uncharitable statements toward me such as : “This statement shows your lack of trying to understand.” and “how can we have a discusion with you because you dont seem to understand plain English”"

Care to stop stalling and answer? How many times and ways to I have to say yes before you are able to answer?

**"Was Peter, our first Pope, in a lower state, since we are told he had a mother-in-law?

Was Pope Alexander VI, in a lower state, having four children outside of marriage?

Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?

Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?"**

?

Sorry but I need you to say " I don’t believe the dogma is correct" to continue to answer any other questions. This shouldn’t be too hard

 

[valient_Lucy]

So then Peter, Moses, Abraham, David, Joseph, etc, were of a lower state than consecrated virgins?

Michael

They had a lower calling. Why does that bother you so much?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt 28 19_20;2119440:

napad;2118999:

Sorry but I need you to say " I don’t believe the dogma is correct" to continue to answer any other questions. This shouldn’t be too hard

Not difficult at all. In regards to:
“This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent”

**I do not believe celibacy has superiority over the married state. That dogma is incorrect. **

Mark 7:6-23 "And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
“For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;
but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”] When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

How about: "'If a man says to his bride to be, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'

Still don’t want to answer the questions?
**"Was Peter, our first Pope, in a lower state, since we are told he had a mother-in-law?

Was Pope Alexander VI, in a lower state, having four children outside of marriage?

Were all the Popes who were married in a lower state than the consecrated virgins of that time?

Is Abraham in a lower state than consecrated virgins?"

?**

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

They had a lower calling. Why does that bother you so much?

You saying that does not bother me. I do not hold the same opinion.

How was Peter, our first Pope, in a lesser state than a consecrated virgin? Is someone who enters the convent this year as a consecrated virgin in a higher state than Peter was, or Abraham, or Moses?

I cannot agree to that.

Michael