Is a nuns husband God Or Jesus?

[truevaticanii]

Semantics are important. What Brother has written is accurate. The figurative language works for some, not for others because their experience of Christ is not nuptial. Br and I have written pretty much the same thing and yet I was told I was “very misguided or. . .”

The fact is, however, nuns and priests are not literally married to the Church nor to Christ. They are not wives relating to a husband. I will affirm anytime I need to that Christ is spouse to me, but he is not my husband. He is my Lord, savior and brother, but NOT my husband. I will affirm anytime that I am spouse to him but that I am NOT his wife. I am consecrated in a life commitment to him but we are NOT married. My love is not married love. It is eschatological marking the love of the Kingdom where no one is given or taken in marriage and it will continue to be that on the other side of death.

You continue to press that you are speaking merely figuratively but what you want people to affirm in a general way is that nuns are married to Christ and priests are married to the Church. In fact, they are not. For some few religious women and men spousal imagery works. For most it does not and they will eschew it for a number of different reasons ---- not least their own esteem for the Sacrament of marriage and all it means.

It remains that no where in Church doctrine does it speak of nuns or priests as married to Christ or the Church, nor of consecration and profession as a form of marriage. The single reference to betrothal in the giving of the ring at perpetual profession indicates figurative espousal and the literal consecration of one’s whole life to Christ. One is set aside forever in the consecrated state and the ring marks this. Even here, however, the Church is restrained in her use of such language.

As for your comment about us not being literally the physical body of Christ, there is some theological nuancing needed with your statement. The phrase body of Christ is not just poetry. It is a literal description. The Church IS the risen (not physical) body of Christ and Christ is her head. Here, though it is often thought otherwise, we are speaking literally as well as figuratively. Christ is risen in his Church. We truly ARE the body of Christ in the world. We have literally become this in baptism and need to take it deadly seriously.

What I want people to affirm is that nuns are indeed married to Christ… in a symbolic way… they are the spouses of Christ in a much deeper way than the world can know… yet they are not ACTUALLY married to Christ and you are right, you can’t really say that they are the wives of Christ because that implies a literal marriage.
I’ve just been trying to balance out the way you were previously speaking… you made it sound as if nuns are not married to Christ symbolically or literally when in fact they are–symbolically that is… at least that was how I was taking it in. You sounded like you were taking one extreme in sounding like you were merely a consecrated virgin or something… so I tried to balance that out with speaking merely of the symbolic marriage rather than stressing the fact that nuns are not literally married. I did this so that the readers of this thread might take in what you have written in light of what I have written and take in what I have written in light of what you have written. When it comes down to it… it kind of was just a matter of semantics that caused us to believe that we disagreed with each other… I thought you were claiming that there was not even a symbolic marriage involved here… while you seemed to think that I believe that nuns are literally married to Christ… no you are married in a symbolic way… in that you professed vows… but you are not married like husband and wife… it is just that marriage is the best way to describe the relationship here between nuns and Christ… that is why the Bible uses allegories… to shed light on that which is impossible to fully grasp with the human mind.

…you seem to think that we disagree with each other… while in all actuality… we don’t…

 

[truevaticanii]

There was once a nun who told a group of seminarians that if they did not want to be married and have children… they were in the wrong place…

because she was speaking symbolically…

if a seminarian does not want to dedicate his life to the Church like a husband dedicates his life to his wife, then he has no business studying for the priesthood.

if a seminarian does not want to dedicate his life to his spiritual children (e.g., his parish) like a father cares for his sons and daughters, then he has no business studying for the priesthood.

If the Bible felt that it was important to describe–in an allegory–the Church’s relationship with Christ as a marriage… we cannot reject this symbolism while at the same time we must teach the Truth in that the best way to describe the relationship is as a marriage while it is not simply a marriage.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There was once a nun who told a group of seminarians that if they did not want to be married and have children… they were in the wrong place…

because she was speaking symbolically…

if a seminarian does not want to dedicate his life to the Church like a husband dedicates his life to his wife, then he has no business studying for the priesthood.

if a seminarian does not want to dedicate his life to his spiritual children (e.g., his parish) like a father cares for his sons and daughters, then he has no business studying for the priesthood.

If the Bible felt that it was important to describe–in an allegory–the Church’s relationship with Christ as a marriage… we cannot reject this symbolism while at the same time we must teach the Truth in that the best way to describe the relationship is as a marriage while it is not simply a marriage.

This is incorrect thinking about the priesthood because the Church ordains married men to the secular priesthood.

There is no doctrinal nor theological language that speaks of marriage when talking about the priesthood.

That is a fact. While some may speak of it in a totally symbolic way, that does not work for everyone and should not be pushed onto those who do not think in this way.

 

[truevaticanii]

This is incorrect thinking about the priesthood because the Church ordains married men to the secular priesthood.

There is no doctrinal nor theological language that speaks of marriage when talking about the priesthood.

That is a fact. While some may speak of it in a totally symbolic way, that does not work for everyone and should not be pushed onto those who do not think in this way.

That should not scandalize anyone… the priest acts as Christ on earth (as we should all do), but he does so in a deeper way… Christ is married to the Church, so in a sense or–more accurately–in a symbolic way the priest is sort of married to the Church just as Christ is the Body of Christ (obviously), we are described as the Body of Christ, Christ is wed to the Church, the priest acts in persona Christi, the priest acts as Christ in a special way, the Church is described as the Body of Christ, and the Bible describes the Church as being the Bride of Christ, so the priest can be described as being a spouse of the Church–Sister would agree with this I’m sure and I doubt that Brother JR would disagree with this. I’m not the person publishing this–God did when He wrote the Bible through the hands of men. The priest is not necessarily married ever… but in a symbolic way–everyone is married just as the priest is to the Church (in a totally symbolic way)…

I’m just saying that if you totally try to claim that no way, no how is a priest described as being married… then you are closing many people’s eyes to the beauty of the priesthood… so we can’t say such things… Jesus described the Church as His bride and He used allegories that people can understand and He is writing this to all of us so there should be no one who has an open heart and mind who would reject such an allegory… it will not hurt anyone… it can only help others because it is of God.

I am well aware that some priests are married and I’m not saying that they are committing adultery against the Church or anything because their “marriage” with the Church is just symbolism to describe something that cannot fully be grasped.

 

[SRLAUREL]

What I want people to affirm is that nuns are indeed married to Christ… in a symbolic way… they are the spouses of Christ in a much deeper way than the world can know… yet they are not ACTUALLY married to Christ and you are right, you can’t really say that they are the wives of Christ because that implies a literal marriage.
I’ve just been trying to balance out the way you were previously speaking… you made it sound as if nuns are not married to Christ symbolically or literally when in fact they are–symbolically that is… at least that was how I was taking it in. . … I did this so that the readers of this thread might take in what you have written in light of what I have written and take in what I have written in light of what you have written. When it comes down to it… it kind of was just a matter of semantics that caused us to believe that we disagreed with each other… I thought you were claiming that there was not even a symbolic marriage involved here… while you seemed to think that I believe that nuns are literally married to Christ… no you are married in a symbolic way…
…you seem to think that we disagree with each other… while in all actuality… we don’t…

Actually, from all that you have said thus far, it seems to me that we do disagree. As I have said, for some religious women (a small minority in fact) the figurative language of marriage works. For most religious women, it does not, nor do they consider themselves (whether literally or figuratively) married to Christ. The consecration of religious is just that, consecration to a life and love that is of the Kingdom, and therefore, neither given nor taken in marriage. Marriage is not necessarily the best way to describe the relationship with Christ either. It is A WAY, but neither the best, nor sometimes even particularly helpful. Most of the time it is not even accurate. As I have noted, for some it does not work at all. For some it is downright unhelpful — even detrimental to understanding the relationship and commitment of religious profession and consecration. And yet we religious men and women are ALL consecrated to God, we all make the same vows and are bound by the same doctrine and express the same theology of religious life.

Please don’t try to tell religious women that they (as a group) are married to Christ, nor that they are misguided, etc if they happen to disagree with you on this. They well know what this relationship is and is not. They well know what imagery helps illuminate it in their own lives, and what does not. Some FEW will completely agree with the spousal imagery and the description of spiritual marriage, but most — no less committed, no less religious women, no less vowed or given to Christ in faithful ministry and prayer — will not. Again, there is NOTHING in the theology of religious profession that requires a religious see themselves as married to Christ, not literally, not figuratively. The imagery MAY assist one point to the unity and intimacy, as well as the totality of self-gift which is involved, but profession itself DOES NOT intrinsically or essentially call for nuptial imagery.

Given the fact that Mary is a primary model of religious, and the fact that women religious work to allow the Word to be embodied and proclaimed in our world, another image that might work to describe religious life is that of celibate Motherhood. And yet we do not do that despite the fact that in terms of imagery it is as valid as spousal language. Consecrated celibacy is a complex and rich reality. It can certainly describe and symbolize a state where, because of one’s commitment and prayer life, one is neither psychologically nor spiritually able to marry anyone else, but it is equally symbolic of a universality of availablility (ministry, community life, etc) which have nothing to do with a sense of “being married” to Christ.

The issue of priests being married to the Church is another issue I believe we completely disagree on. As Brother has noted quite clearly, there is nothing in the ordination rite, nor in the theology of priesthood itself which allows one to draw the conclusion you have. Priests ARE NOT married to the Church. If they are celibate they are unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom. If they are married (and we do have married priests and are soon to have more), then they are married to their wives.

Again, you would like to make something which is existentially and figuratively true for some few a general truth — even if the language is merely figurative. That was done for many many years and the result was many religious women who were tragically led to believe there was something wrong or deficient with regard to their relationship with Christ. The universal imposition of nuptial imagery was destructive even while it was seen as profound and romantic for many others (including the laity!). Even today, those who DO experience religious consecration as a mystical/nuptial union have trouble articulating the uniqueness of their experience because the imagery has been so seriously misused in a general application. (People tend to say, “Yeah, so what? THAT is what a nun is; that’s what she is supposed to experience!” They could not be more mistaken, but this is a result of applying imagery which is helpful in a generally normative and defining way.)

Bottom line, some few religious men and women may find nuptial imagery works well to describe their relationship with Christ, but most do not, and that is fine because the theology of religious profession is NOT based on theology of marriage; it is not an expression of such theology, nor should the imagery be universally applied.

All my best.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That should not scandalize anyone… the priest acts as Christ on earth (as we should all do), but he does so in a deeper way… Christ is married to the Church, so in a sense or–more accurately–in a symbolic way the priest is sort of married to the Church just as Christ is the Body of Christ (obviously), we are described as the Body of Christ, Christ is wed to the Church, the priest acts in persona Christi, the priest acts as Christ in a special way, the Church is described as the Body of Christ, and the Bible describes the Church as being the Bride of Christ, so the priest can be described as being a spouse of the Church–Sister would agree with this I’m sure and I doubt that Brother JR would disagree with this. I’m not the person publishing this–God did when He wrote the Bible through the hands of men. The priest is not necessarily married ever… but in a symbolic way–everyone is married just as the priest is to the Church (in a totally symbolic way)…

I’m just saying that if you totally try to claim that no way, no how is a priest described as being married… then you are closing many people’s eyes to the beauty of the priesthood… so we can’t say such things… Jesus described the Church as His bride and He used allegories that people can understand and He is writing this to all of us so there should be no one who has an open heart and mind who would reject such an allegory… it will not hurt anyone… it can only help others because it is of God.

I am well aware that some priests are married and I’m not saying that they are committing adultery against the Church or anything because their “marriage” with the Church is just symbolism to describe something that cannot fully be grasped.

A priest is not “Christ on earth”. A priest acts in persona christi at the Mass, that is he acts “in the person of Christ”, he is not Christ. This is a misconception.

Focusing on the marriage thing also close the eyes of those who do not feel the marriage aspect in their vocation.

I disagree with you that it can not hurt, it can as not everyone feels their vocation in such a way, just as Sr Laurel and Br JR have been saying.

To focus so much on something that is not theological or doctrinal in anyway can lead people to a misunderstanding.

A priest is not married to the Church. To focus on such a symbol in the way you are doing is pushing farther than it should go. How do you get around the idea of polygamy in your ideas? After all there is only one Church but many, many priests.

 

[SRLAUREL]

You sounded like you were taking one extreme in sounding like you were merely a consecrated virgin or something… so I tried to balance that out with speaking merely of the symbolic marriage rather than stressing the fact that nuns are not literally married…

I would suggest you (and anyone else who tends to look at some vocations as superior to others) be very careful about using the term “merely” in conjunction with consecrated virginity. The vocation to consecrated virginity is not a lesser vocation than that of religious or eremitical profession, and we should take care not to give the sense that it is. It is different but the woman consecrated in this way becomes part of the consecrated state no less than a nun or monk. The vocation is a different one, but not less than my own, for instance.

What I said was that only in the Rite of Consecration of Virgins is the spousal imagery pervasive in a way which seems to define the vocation itself. This means that consecrated virgins as a group are far more likely to refer to themselves as spouses or brides of Christ than are religious women. What is important here is the distinction between the two groups as groups. The theology of consecrated virginity is apparently at least more what you are speaking of than is the theology of religious profession or consecration when you say (some group) are brides of Christ or married to Christ.

However, I have not worked on the theology of Consecrated virginity and need to read more about that. I can say with assurance that the theology of religious life is NOT based on the imagery of marriage, and that as a group, religious ought not be thought of as “married to Christ.”

 

[SRLAUREL]

That should not scandalize anyone… the priest acts as Christ on earth (as we should all do), but he does so in a deeper way… Christ is married to the Church, so in a sense or–more accurately–in a symbolic way the priest is sort of married to the Church just as Christ is the Body of Christ (obviously), we are described as the Body of Christ, Christ is wed to the Church, the priest acts in persona Christi, the priest acts as Christ in a special way, the Church is described as the Body of Christ, and the Bible describes the Church as being the Bride of Christ, so the priest can be described as being a spouse of the Church–Sister would agree with this I’m sure and I doubt that Brother JR would disagree with this. I’m not the person publishing this–God did when He wrote the Bible through the hands of men. The priest is not necessarily married ever… but in a symbolic way–everyone is married just as the priest is to the Church (in a totally symbolic way)…

Actually, I am sorry, but I would disgree with most of what you have written. The priest is not Christ on earth. The risen Christ is present here in many many ways. He is especially present in Word and Sacrament. He is not absent but risen and present and to speak of the preist as his presence her on earth seems to undercut that understanding of the way things are. Does the priest participate in this presence in a unique way, and function at specific times in persona Christi? Surely, but this is not the same as affirming the priest is “Christ present on earth”. Rather, it is Christ’s presence which allows a priest to serve in this way.

Neither is Christ married to the Church. The Church IS his body. She is the original Sacrament. He is the head of the Church, her Lord and Savior. Yes, the bridegroom/bride imagery especially works if one wants to speak of the intimacy of the identity here and also to give an example of what an actual marriage SHOULD be (especially the understanding of two people becoming one flesh), but Christ is not married to the Church, nor she to him. Marriage is simply one image of several used to describe what this relationship is like. It remains a simile however and should not be pressed beyond these limits.

Again, the Priest is NOT married to the Church. That is true whether you are speaking figuratively, or whether you are speaking literally. Nothing in the theology of ordination or priesthood requires a notion of marriage to Christ or the Church, symbolic or otherwise. Nothing about the notion of espousal is intrinsic to priesthood. Further, it is important to remember that priests, unless they are religious, embrace celibacy as a disciplinary matter, not as a charism which is essential to priesthood itself. This is quite different from religious life in which the commitment to consecrated celibacy is the heart of the vocation itself, not something which is merely expedient — and yet, generally speaking even the theology of religious life does not require the idea of marriage as essential to it.

It is unfortunate that we have taken imagery which is meant to point to types and intensities of religious and mystical experience and turned them into general truths. In doing so we blunt the experiences the imagery is meant merely to point to and illuminate, while turning it into stereotypes which convey very little of real substance to contemporary men and women. For instance, when I describe my experience of Christ as nuptial I am saying far more than that he is my spouse in a general sense. If one hears, “Oh she is affirming she is a bride of Christ like any nun!” they will have missed a great deal. One the other hand, if they attribute my own experience to every other Sister or treat it as normative, they will also be very wide of the truth. Further, in focusing on one image above all others we miss the richness and diversity of other valid imagery and experience which can describe reality at least equally as well.

 

[truevaticanii]

I don’t have much time to type at this time but…

1. I see all vocations as equal.
2. If it hurt people to view the Church’s relationship with Christ as a “marraige”–symbolically as an allegory, then Christ would not have used the allegory to speak to EVERYONE.

My point is that all the people of the Church as one single body have a relation to Christ as described through an allegory as the Bride of Christ… that is how Christ describes it to all of us and He always describes things to us in a way that we will understand… and if you do not understand that then you have closed your heart or mind or both in some way to His message.

Some people say they are “married” to their work… it means that they are dedicated to each other… that is what I am trying to get across here…

everyone is dedicated to Christ.
priests dedicate their lives to Christ also through their dedication to the Church.
nuns dedicate their lives to Christ in a special way through prayer and also through their dedication to the Church.
I could go on… but in the end we are all dedicated to all of these things as Catholics… it is just that certain aspects of each vocation cause different dedications to stand out more… and each individual’s vocation is a bit different though they are all equal…

replace all of the words “marraige” (in some shape or form) with “dedication to” (in some shape or form) in what I have written… that is basically my main concern here.

And when I said that priests act as the person of Christ on earth… they do always… as we are all to do… I simply mean that they work to do God’s will on earth… they try to always allow Christ to work through them… just as we are all to do.

That’s all I have time to say for now my brothers and sisters in Christ… God Bless you.

 

[SRLAUREL]

I don’t have much time to type at this time but…

1. I see all vocations as equal.
2. If it hurt people to view the Church’s relationship with Christ as a “marraige”–symbolically as an allegory, then Christ would not have used the allegory to speak to EVERYONE.

My point is that all the people of the Church as one single body have a relation to Christ as described through an allegory as the Bride of Christ… that is how Christ describes it to all of us and He always describes things to us in a way that we will understand… and if you do not understand that then you have closed your heart or mind or both in some way to His message.

Some people say they are “married” to their work… it means that they are dedicated to each other… that is what I am trying to get across here…

everyone is dedicated to Christ.
priests dedicate their lives to Christ also through their dedication to the Church.
nuns dedicate their lives to Christ in a special way through prayer and also through their dedication to the Church.
I could go on… but in the end we are all dedicated to all of these things as Catholics… it is just that certain aspects of each vocation cause different dedications to stand out more… and each individual’s vocation is a bit different though they are all equal…

replace all of the words “marraige” (in some shape or form) with “dedication to” (in some shape or form) in what I have written… that is basically my main concern here.

And when I said that priests act as the person of Christ on earth… they do always… as we are all to do… I simply mean that they work to do God’s will on earth… they try to always allow Christ to work through them… just as we are all to do.

That’s all I have time to say for now my brothers and sisters in Christ… God Bless you.

I am glad to hear you believe all vocations are equal. When you said that you thought perhaps I was saying I was merely a consecrated virgin it sounded like you were putting CV’s on a different level than professed hermits or nuns. Thank you for clarifying that.

For the rest, I don’t think it does much good to use terms and then empty them of meaning. For instance you use the term marriage (as in married to Christ or married to the Church) but then say you only mean that people are dedicated to Christ. In fact all I have said right along is that all religious men and women are consecrated to God, and for a very few, it is seen accurately and meaningfully in nuptial imagery. The profession of vows is, for the human side of it an act of dedication. No one disputes this. On the divine side it is consecration — a setting aside in the consecrated state. No one has disputed this either. What has been disputed is that some persons (religious men and women) are brides of Christ in a way differing from lay persons (we never hear lay persons being spoken of as brides of Christ or as married to Christ). We dedicate ourselves in many ways and shapes. Marriage is a very specific and significant form of mutual dedication which makes one flesh of two persons. No other form of dedication does this. Thus, the original question was whether nuns are married to God or Jesus (and by extension, to the Church). In fact, they are married to neither.

Priests, by the way do not act in persona christi in all they do. They do this in particular times and places — when they celebrate Eucharist or hear confessions, for instance, when they act in the name of the whole Church. They do this in a way which differs from the non ordained, so it is not a case that they do this as we all do. Priests are changed in ordination, configured in a way which allows the Holy Spirit to work through them in ways the HS does not work through me, for instance, or you either. (I would argue the Holy Spirit CAN work through anyone in this way in the absence of Holy Orders — say, in a church living underground in a Communist country, for instance — but that in ordinary circumstances, the HS does NOT work in this way except through ordained priests who act with a special authority in presiding, etc.) Thus the authority to act in persona christi distinguishes the ordained priesthood from the priesthood of all believers.

All good wishes.

 

[truevaticanii]

I am glad to hear you believe all vocations are equal. When you said that you thought perhaps I was saying I was merely a consecrated virgin it sounded like you were putting CV’s on a different level than professed hermits or nuns. Thank you for clarifying that.

For the rest, I don’t think it does much good to use terms and then empty them of meaning. For instance you use the term marriage (as in married to Christ or married to the Church) but then say you only mean that people are dedicated to Christ. In fact all I have said right along is that all religious men and women are consecrated to God, and for a very few, it is seen accurately and meaningfully in nuptial imagery. The profession of vows is, for the human side of it an act of dedication. No one disputes this. On the divine side it is consecration — a setting aside in the consecrated state. No one has disputed this either. What has been disputed is that some persons (religious men and women) are brides of Christ in a way differing from lay persons (we never hear lay persons being spoken of as brides of Christ or as married to Christ). We dedicate ourselves in many ways and shapes. Marriage is a very specific and significant form of mutual dedication which makes one flesh of two persons. No other form of dedication does this. Thus, the original question was whether nuns are married to God or Jesus (and by extension, to the Church). In fact, they are married to neither.

Priests, by the way do not act in persona christi in all they do. They do this in particular times and places — when they celebrate Eucharist or hear confessions, for instance, when they act in the name of the whole Church. They do this in a way which differs from the non ordained, so it is not a case that they do this as we all do. Priests are changed in ordination, configured in a way which allows the Holy Spirit to work through them in ways the HS does not work through me, for instance, or you either. (I would argue the Holy Spirit CAN work through anyone in this way in the absence of Holy Orders — say, in a church living underground in a Communist country, for instance — but that in ordinary circumstances, the HS does NOT work in this way except through ordained priests who act with a special authority in presiding, etc.) Thus the authority to act in persona christi distinguishes the ordained priesthood from the priesthood of all believers.

All good wishes.

I am just saying that the allegory of marriage (as a symbol) applies to all… and allegories can never grasp the whole beauty… they only shed some light on something that is difficult to describe and which is often at least somewhat a mystery.

Oh, and don’t worry I know that priests don’t always act in persona Christi… what I meant is that they TRY to allow Christ to work through them 24/7 (or at least they are supposed to try just as we are all to try)… and we do that through “fiat voluntas tua” (Thy will be done)… we accept God’s will for us and we do it rather than rejecting God’s will. Not saying that we are all infallible or that we are all acting in persona Christi, I just mean that we all are to act as Christ for others… we do what Jesus wants us to do for Him… or at least we try to… we of course fail all too often. …we fail to avoid doing wrong and we fail to do good. …but we are blessed with Christ as our Savior who gives Confession to us so that Christ may absolve us of our sins through the hands of the priest…

…and sister… thanks for wearing your veil and habit! While they are meant also to help you… they help us all quite alot also! Thank you for your witness!

 

[truevaticanii]

I am glad to hear you believe all vocations are equal. When you said that you thought perhaps I was saying I was merely a consecrated virgin it sounded like you were putting CV’s on a different level than professed hermits or nuns. Thank you for clarifying that.

For the rest, I don’t think it does much good to use terms and then empty them of meaning. For instance you use the term marriage (as in married to Christ or married to the Church) but then say you only mean that people are dedicated to Christ. In fact all I have said right along is that all religious men and women are consecrated to God, and for a very few, it is seen accurately and meaningfully in nuptial imagery. The profession of vows is, for the human side of it an act of dedication. No one disputes this. On the divine side it is consecration — a setting aside in the consecrated state. No one has disputed this either. What has been disputed is that some persons (religious men and women) are brides of Christ in a way differing from lay persons (we never hear lay persons being spoken of as brides of Christ or as married to Christ). We dedicate ourselves in many ways and shapes. Marriage is a very specific and significant form of mutual dedication which makes one flesh of two persons. No other form of dedication does this. Thus, the original question was whether nuns are married to God or Jesus (and by extension, to the Church). In fact, they are married to neither.

Priests, by the way do not act in persona christi in all they do. They do this in particular times and places — when they celebrate Eucharist or hear confessions, for instance, when they act in the name of the whole Church. They do this in a way which differs from the non ordained, so it is not a case that they do this as we all do. Priests are changed in ordination, configured in a way which allows the Holy Spirit to work through them in ways the HS does not work through me, for instance, or you either. (I would argue the Holy Spirit CAN work through anyone in this way in the absence of Holy Orders — say, in a church living underground in a Communist country, for instance — but that in ordinary circumstances, the HS does NOT work in this way except through ordained priests who act with a special authority in presiding, etc.) Thus the authority to act in persona christi distinguishes the ordained priesthood from the priesthood of all believers.

All good wishes.

I am just saying that the allegory of marriage (as a symbol) applies to all… and allegories can never grasp the whole beauty… they only shed some light on something that is difficult to describe and which is often at least somewhat a mystery.

Oh, and don’t worry I know that priests don’t always act in persona Christi… what I meant is that they TRY to allow Christ to work through them 24/7 (or at least they are supposed to try just as we are all to try)… and we do that through “fiat voluntas tua” (Thy will be done)… we accept God’s will for us and we do it rather than rejecting God’s will. Not saying that we are all infallible or that we are all acting in persona Christi, I just mean that we all are to act as Christ for others… we do what Jesus wants us to do for Him… or at least we try to… we of course fail all too often. …we fail to avoid doing wrong and we fail to do good. …but we are blessed with Christ as our Savior who gives Confession to us so that Christ may absolve us of our sins through the hands of the priest…

…and Sister… thanks for wearing your veil and habit! While they are meant also to help you… they help us all quite alot also! Thank you for your witness!

 

[Shaken]

Jesus preached that there is no marriage in heaven. Why would He be married to anyone on earth?

 

[SRLAUREL]

Jesus preached that there is no marriage in heaven. Why would He be married to anyone on earth?

Pretty much. Consecrated celibacy or celibate love is eschatological, that is it is a symbol of that love which is characteristic of the Kingdom in which no one is given to exclusive (married or sexual) forms of love. It is a proleptic form of life, however, so is marriage. It is the case that the Scriptures use many different images to illustrate what various forms of discipleship are about. Some may seem to conflict with others. Each is a partial reflection and anticipation of the fullness of truth — hence the seeming conflict(s).

 

[JReducation]

I think that we have to be careful here not to push labels and symbols upon people. Priests, men religious, women religious, hermits and othes do not espouse this imagery of marriage to Christ. It does not fit, as a general rule. Therefore, it is best if it is not pushed any further. The Church does not push this imagery, neither should anyone else.

A better way to describe a priest is as a man who is called to enter into the priesthood of Jesus Christ for the purpose of mediating grace through the scacraments and throug the preaching of the Word.

A better way to describe sisters and brothers is as men and women who are called by Christ to be stand in the place of Christ, the first-born of many brothers and sisters, calls all men to his Father through perfect charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SRLAUREL]

I think that we have to be careful here not to push labels and symbols upon people. Priests, men religious, women religious, hermits and othes do not espouse this imagery of marriage to Christ. It does not fit, as a general rule. Therefore, it is best if it is not pushed any further. The Church does not push this imagery, neither should anyone else.

A better way to describe a priest is as a man who is called to enter into the priesthood of Jesus Christ for the purpose of mediating grace through the scacraments and throug the preaching of the Word.

A better way to describe sisters and brothers is as men and women who are called by Christ to be stand in the place of Christ, the first-born of many brothers and sisters, calls all men to his Father through perfect charity.

I agree completely. Of course, the Church once DID push this imagery, It was both wonderful and yet for many religious women, it was destructive to their vocations and hurtful to them more generally. Fortunately, the Church does not press the imagery today as she once did. The only place the imagery is dominant is in the Rite of the Consecration of Virgins. The actual experience of men and women religious, hermits, priests, etc is being taken into account and it is an excellent thing. So is the Church’s tendency to read Scripture in a more historical-critical manner which allows her to appreciate imagery without taking it as definitive or normative.

All my best.

 

[JReducation]

I agree completely. Of course, the Church once DID push this imagery, It was both wonderful and yet for many religious women, it was destructive to their vocations and hurtful to them more generally. Fortunately, the Church does not press the imagery today as she once did. The only place the imagery is dominant is in the Rite of the Consecration of Virgins. The actual experience of men and women religious, hermits, priests, etc is being taken into account and it is an excellent thing. So is the Church’s tendency to read Scripture in a more historical-critical manner which allows her to appreciate imagery without taking it as definitive or normative.

All my best.

As a brother in a very traditional community I can say that this imagery of marriage almost anahilated religious brothers. They did not fit the paradigm. They were not women religious. Therefore, they were not brides of Christ. They are not priests. Therefore, they are not married to the Church. So what was done to the brothers was to isolate them by ignoring their special place in the life of the Church. The laity and many sisters and priests too, are guilty of reducing brothers and the call to be a brother to some non-descript way of life that is half-way between a priest and a seminarian. This deeply hurt the number of men who were considering the response to Christ’s call to live as consecrated brothers. When they spoke about it to their friends, family members, parish priests, sisters in schools, the immediate question was, “Why don’t you go all the way and become a priest?” What a horrible question! Instead of validating a young man’s call to consecrate his life to be the first among many brothers, as Christ is, it devalued his call.

Some day many priests, teaching sisters and lay people will have to answer for diverting men whom God called to live for him in the intimacy of the vowed life. Thank God, today’s young men are more aware that Christ calls men and women to himself in many ways. These young men today are willing to offer ther lives to God, despite what the world thinks of them or how the world labels them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SRLAUREL]

As a brother in a very traditional community I can say that this imagery of marriage almost anahilated religious brothers. They did not fit the paradigm. They were not women religious. Therefore, they were not brides of Christ. They are not priests. Therefore, they are not married to the Church. So what was done to the brothers was to isolate them by ignoring their special place in the life of the Church. The laity and many sisters and priests too, are guilty of reducing brothers and the call to be a brother to some non-descript way of life that is half-way between a priest and a seminarian. This deeply hurt the number of men who were considering the response to Christ’s call to live as consecrated brothers. When they spoke about it to their friends, family members, parish priests, sisters in schools, the immediate question was, “Why don’t you go all the way and become a priest?” What a horrible question! Instead of validating a young man’s call to consecrate his life to be the first among many brothers, as Christ is, it devalued his call. Fraternally, Br. JR, OSF

Yes, I am am glad you are speaking about this. Another way the Church actually devalues the vocation of Brothers and Sisters is through mandatory priestly celibacy. I can’t tell you how many people I have spoken to believe that Sisters and Brothers are celibate because they are required to be, not because it is the essence or heart of their vocation. They have no sense at all that for some of us consecrated celibacy or celibate love is a charism, not a matter of externally imposed discipline. Of course you know this yourself. They expect nuns and brothers to marry as soon as the church actually “allows it”!

However, there is no doubt that Brothers have suffered more from the misunderstandings fostered by the church (etc) in her emphasis on priesthood, etc.

Sororally,

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am just saying that the allegory of marriage (as a symbol) applies to all… and allegories can never grasp the whole beauty… they only shed some light on something that is difficult to describe and which is often at least somewhat a mystery.

And here you have three religious saying that it does not apply to all.

 

[Carlan]

I should note that the Church as a whole is most often called the Bride of Christ and Christ her bridegroom.

Yes Sister, that was my thought when I first read the question, and I do think your following quote was a most beautiful tradition, I have wondered if there are still some orders celebrating their final vows in this way.

Today this is no longer the case because for the majority of religious men and women the spousal imagery does not describe the kind of relationship they experience. Thus, once upon a time nuns used wedding dresses which they exchanged for habits and used rings as a sign of espousal. Today the ring is generally a sign of a life-commitment, nothing less, nor other. The profession rite includes some spousal imagery, but this may be minimized (or maximized) in individual cases. It was never a doctrinal matter however, nor essential to an understanding of either the vows or consecrated life. Nor is it today. Only in the case of consecrated virgins (whether of nuns or women living in the world who are not identified as Sister and do not make vows) is the Rite itself replete with such imagery and only in these cases does a women ordinarily identify herself as a spouse of Christ.

God bless you and all you do for the Church, the Bride of Christ.Carlan