How Downplayed is the Vocation to Single Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecommongentry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thinking the issue here is a potential misunderstanding of what consecration is. There’s a difference between the private vows of a secular institute and the consecration of @SerraSemper by a bishop. Just because one promises something to God does not make it a consecration.
 
Was Saint John Baptist consecrated to God according to you? were the first anchorites consecrated to God? it is the decor and the pageantry that you believe are the essence of a consecration?
 
No. It’s not the pageantry that makes a consecration a consecration. By that logic priests should not bother to be ordained, because that’s pageantry. Confecting the Eucharist would then be considered pagentry because that is a consecration. The general definition of consecration, as provided by New Advent, is “an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies.” The priest’s hands are consecrated to be specifically dedicated to God’s service. So too is a woman’s virginity as a Consecrated Virgin. An altar is consecrated to set it specifically aside for the holy Mass, the same with a church. And how is it set aside? By a bishop, a successor of the Apostles who has the fullness of Holy Orders and fully represents Christ as another Christ.
 
Last edited:
I have never deny the importance of public consecration! but there is also private consecration which is equally important. Some consecration must be “hidden” in the eyes of men, others must be public and visible.
 
the consecration of the Virgin Mary was hidden from the eyes of men. Those of the apostles were public and visible
 
But that’s the thing. What you’re suggesting is not consecration. I’m not an expert, but I’m not even sure if there is such thing as a private consecration. You’re talking about private vows. What makes it a consecration is the fact that Christ through the Bishop sets aside an object or person for a holy purpose.
 
i give again the defintion that you have given
“an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies.”
it is not said anywhere that it is by a bishop that a consecration must be made! and I still ask you a simple question. Was Saint John the Baptist dedicated to God? the first anchorites were they dedicated to God
 
Last edited:
I only provided a basic definition. If you’d like the whole article where it specifically says it’s done by a bishop, here it is:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm

St. John the Baptist was dedicated to God, yes. But, and again I must reiterate my lack of expertise, I do not think it was a consecration per se. Even if I’m wrong, it would be wrong to point to the unique example of St. John the Baptist and say that what he did can be done by others.
 
And were the first anchorites consecrated to God? and the Virgin Mary ?
 
I’m not familiar with the case of the anchorites. Mary was by the unique graces that God gave her to her and her alone. To compare private vows of chastity, obedience, and poverty to her case would not be proper.

EDIT: Are we talking about her virginity or her sinlessness?
 
Last edited:
If I take the examples of the Virgin Mary, anchorites and others, it is to show that there are people actually consecrated to God but that their consecration are hidden publicaly.
 
I am convinced that the two forms of consecration are God’s will and each have their importance
 
I won’t speak on the Anchorites, but two of the cases you mentioned are so unique that they cannot be used as the basis for a private consecration. My main point is that you cannot say that those in secular institutes are not consecrated. As we have it in the Church, a consecration is public and done by a bishop. If it’s missing either of those two things, it’s not a consecration.
 
it is not because a bishop has not consecrated a person that this person can not actually be consecrated, it’s obvious i’ve give you many examples.
It’s a bit like the sacraments, it’s not because a person has not taken a sacrament that he is totally excluded from the graces given by these sacraments
 
But how are those sacraments instituted? By God. How are the graces in them effective? Through God. I may pray the words of consecration to confect the Eucharist perfectly, but I do not have the faculties to do so that are granted by God through the Bishop. The cases of Mary and John the Baptist are before the establishment of Christ’s church. The Church has the authority to decide what is a consecration, and what you present is still not it. I don’t know what else to say. This is a matter of a definition.
 
I remind you that the definition you gave begins as follows:
Consecration, in general, is an act by which a thing is separated from a common and profane to a sacred use, or by which a person or thing is dedicated to the service and worship of God by prayers, rites, and ceremonies
Click to expand...
it’s say IN GENERAL, it’s not always absolutely like that.

For the sacraments you have not understood. One may receive sanctifying grace (which is the purpose of the sacraments) without going through the canonical means to obtain it (the sacrament)
In the same way, someone may find himself actually consecrated to God (which is the end of consecration) without going through the canonical act that confers consecration, for there are obvious examples that I have shown you.
 
Last edited:
Actually the examples you made are not obvious. It is not known if the anchorites were consecrated. Certainly they were dedicated (e.g., they gave themselves to God) but whether they were consecrated is an entirely different subject. We do take Mary to be consecrated, but that was a very special circumstance. Generally speaking, I completely disagree with your definitions because they aren’t proper definitions. You haven’t actually provided a definition of consecration other than some kind of commitment someone makes, and that is not the Church’s definition of a consecration in the vocational sense.
 
Very well said. It has nothing to do with pagentry. A classmate of mine was ordained in a small room in secret because he was living in a communist country. Where was the pagentry? But he is now a priest!

I believe part of the confusion is because there is loose meaning when some people equate the devotional affectation of “consecration” to the Sacred Heart with vocational consecration. Obviously vocational consecration has to do with a real change, not a self-dedication.

Also, the consecrated members of secular institutes are actually consecrated. That was the whole point of Provida Mater- that they receive a consecration equal to that of sacred virgins or religious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top