Is a nuns husband God Or Jesus?

[truevaticanii]

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

describing the married life, single life, religous life, concecrated life, priesthood as apart of this marraige) especially to Christ is merely an allegory, which helps to explain our relation to Christ…

Jesus is not actually married to anyone on earth… Jesus never was, is not, and never will be truly married to anyone… Jesus only uses the allegory of the Church being married to Him to help us to understand his love and dedication to us, which we must share with Him (we have to love Him back… and dedicate our wholeselves to Him).

All members of the Church are described as being married to Christ in a totally symbolic way… they are not truly married to Him… priests, Brothers, sisters, lay men and women, etc. are only related to Christ through the symbolism of a marraige in the Bible because our relationship with Christ is a mystery… in saying that we are married to Christ… we are merely trying to describe our relationship with Christ in the best way possible… and the best way possible would be from the Bible (such as is described directly from Christ Himself but also in the Song of Songs a.k.a. the Canticle of Canticles)… and because the Bible is written to all peoples from Christ, and Christ speaks to us in parables–in ways that we will understand Him if we open our hearts and minds… then the allegory of a marraige can apply to all people… through some understanding from Tradition , Scripture, Magisterium… …and priests in a special way can be described SYMBOLICALLY being also married to the Church (keeping in mind that they are not actually married to Christ or the Church)… but this is the same as all people of the Church can be related to Christ through the imagery of marraige.

what is a marriage… love, dedication, etc. which is what a husband and wife give to each other… Christ gives this all to us and because of that we then offer this back up to Him…

…but allegories can only go so far… you cannot take Christ’s relationship to us as a literal marraige because that may lead you to believing things that are not true… so you have to look at the allegory in light of the context of the Scripture, along with Tradition, and guidance from the Magisterium, etc.

 

[truevaticanii]

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

Who said that you are all infallible? there are hundreds of more people who would agree with me than the small number that would agree with you…

here’s the deal… if you say that this allegory does not apply to all, then you are saying that Christ’s allegory of the Church being married to Christ cannot be applied to all people of the Church, thus you are saying that something that Christ said to all people does not apply to or perhaps make sense to some people, which totally goes against how Christ works…

I have a feeling that you are thinking that I am trying to say that ordination, taking vows, etc. are all different kinds of marraiges… that is not true…

what I am saying is that the allegory from the Bible (from God Himself) can be apploed to all vocations in that everyone in the Church has a vocation and the Church is described through an allegory as being married to Christ (not literally married–this is imagery), so in your vocation… you are married to Christ… and in a similar manner, you are married to the Church (but not literally married… this is imagery, an allegory, etc.)

When we say that a priest is 'married to the Church" we are saying that he loves and is dedicated to the Church… When we say that a priest is “married” to Christ we are saying that he love and is dedicated to Christ… you can replace married in these sentences with dedicated and you can replace priest with lay person, brother, sister, etc.

 

[truevaticanii]

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).

I agree except that all I cannot tell if you would agree with me on this or not:

“Scriptures use many different images to illustrate what various forms of discipleship are about”…none of these conflict with any form of discipleship unless you try to apply the image as literal or if you try to take the imagery too far… an allegory can only go so far–for example Jesus is not literally a shephard, he does not smell like a shepard, and he isn’t sinful like a shephard (all people are sinners–including shepards–that is unless you are speaking of God–Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit or His Holy Mother–Mary).

 

[truevaticanii]

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

I’mn not the one pushing this symbolism… Christ is… in the Bible… if you read any of my other recent posts… you will see that the allegory of marraige to Christ applies to all in some way, but of course that allegory cannot be taken literally and can only go so far. It applies to all inasmuch as it relates one mystery to a mystery that humans have been more familiar with for a longer period of time.

 

[truevaticanii]

As a brother in a very traditional community I can say that this imagery of marriage almost anahilated religious brothers… when people take the imagery out of its proper context. They did not fit the paradigm. They were not women religious. Therefore, they were not brides of Christ. **…yet they are married to Christ in that they are apart of the Church, which is described as feminine though the Church does not truly have a gender… it’s imagery! ** They are not priests. Therefore, they are not married to the Church. …yet they are marred to the Church in that they are dedicated to the Church and they love Her! 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! **That is most definitely a horrible question… your vocation is equally important… history is proof of that! ** 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. …that is when the imagery of marraige is taken too far out of context and is not used in the proper manner

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. …every good young Catholic male must discern the call to religous life, priesthood, married life, or possibly the single life… I think the problem is not that the imagery destroyed the number of religous men… I think it was the sexual revolution of the seventies and such that decreased the number of priests and religous… and the fact that the priesthood is “in competition” (some men are sent there by God as well–there is no actual competition in any way–I am just at a dead end in finding an accurate word for this) with the religous life and married life and such also plays a factor whereas there are less “major categories” of women’s vocations… another problem is that some religous groups became less traditional and they became more modernistic and worldly… I know too many religous who do not follow Catholic teaching, they do not wear their habits and such because they want to look like “normal” people, etc. For example, when I hear that someone is a Franciscan, I automatically question whether they are cafeteria Catholics or truly traditional, orthodox Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SRLAUREL]

Who said that you are all infallible? there are hundreds of more people who would agree with me than the small number that would agree with you…

what I am saying is that the allegory from the Bible (from God Himself) can be apploed to all vocations in that everyone in the Church has a vocation and the Church is described through an allegory as being married to Christ (not literally married–this is imagery), so in your vocation… you are married to Christ… and in a similar manner, you are married to the Church (but not literally married… this is imagery, an allegory, etc.)

When we say that a priest is 'married to the Church" we are saying that he loves and is dedicated to the Church… When we say that a priest is “married” to Christ we are saying that he love and is dedicated to Christ… you can replace married in these sentences with dedicated and you can replace priest with lay person, brother, sister, etc.

Again, you are effectively emptying terms of meaning. If the term marriage MERELY means that one is dedicated to another (or to an institution), then actual marriage (where two people become one flesh and give their lives to one another as a witness to Christ’s own love for us) ceases to be meaningful. For instance, I am dedicated to my work; I am not married to it. I am dedicated to clients and their well-being; I am emphatically NOT married to them, for instance. Either the term marriage, whether used figuratively or literally, means something more than just dedication, or we might as well throw out the Sacrament of marriage and celebrations of this institution. More, we should happily allow anyone dedicated to another person to call this dedication marriage and celebrate it in Church. Why not?

In using bridal imagery (this is not an allegory but a simile) and in speaking of each of the faithful as betrothed to the bridegroom, the Church (and the Apostles Matt and Paul) does so with something more in mind than simply dedication, namely, that each person is called to become One in him in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the bridal imagery points as much to goal as reality. In any case, it includes dedication but goes far beyond this as well. Union is at the heart of the image of marriage and it is an eschatological reality. For this reason dedication is not a good substitute for the terms betrothal or marriage. Further, it is probably not a good idea to speak of priests (or religious) as married to Christ (they are NOT married to the Church) unless one is very carefully inclusive of every baptised person: “Priests like every other person in the Church are betrothed to Christ,” etc.

This is my last post on this matter unless something new comes up.

Best regards.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Who said that you are all infallible? there are hundreds of more people who would agree with me than the small number that would agree with you…

No one said that, but you seem to think you are.

Just because many people believe something does not make it the Truth.

I find it interesting that a member of the laity seems to know more about the religious life than those who actually live it and in living it have studied in a way that a lay person can not.

I am with Sr Laurel on this, we have told you what we believe, what we live, as well as what the Church says in the matter.

There is nothing more to discuss.

 

[truevaticanii]

Again, you are effectively emptying terms of meaning. If the term marriage MERELY means that one is dedicated to another (or to an institution), then actual marriage (where two people become one flesh and give their lives to one another as a witness to Christ’s own love for us) ceases to be meaningful. For instance, I am dedicated to my work; I am not married to it. I am dedicated to clients and their well-being; I am emphatically NOT married to them, for instance. Either the term marriage, whether used figuratively or literally, means something more than just dedication, or we might as well throw out the Sacrament of marriage and celebrations of this institution. More, we should happily allow anyone dedicated to another person to call this dedication marriage and celebrate it in Church. Why not?

In using bridal imagery (this is not an allegory but a simile) and in speaking of each of the faithful as betrothed to the bridegroom, the Church (and the Apostles Matt and Paul) does so with something more in mind than simply dedication, namely, that each person is called to become One in him in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the bridal imagery points as much to goal as reality. In any case, it includes dedication but goes far beyond this as well. Union is at the heart of the image of marriage and it is an eschatological reality. For this reason dedication is not a good substitute for the terms betrothal or marriage. Further, it is probably not a good idea to speak of priests (or religious) as married to Christ (they are NOT married to the Church) unless one is very carefully inclusive of every baptised person: “Priests like every other person in the Church are betrothed to Christ,” etc.

This is my last post on this matter unless something new comes up.

Best regards.

oh brother…

You are totally taking the terminology way beyond imagery and allegory and simile… etc.

I am not saying that marriage is “merely” love and dedication… I am saying that the allegory of marraige takes only certain aspects of the marriage to apply it to the Church’s relationship with Christ… that’s why I stressed that allegory’s can “only go so far”… like the whole thing with Jesus being a shepherd…
I was not saying that dedication is a suitable replacement for the word marraige, but I was giving an example of one of the aspects of marraige that is being applied to the simile of marraige…

I even stated before how this allegory of Christ the bridegroom being wed to his bride the Church is taking a mystery that the world has none longer and perhaps know a bit more about and it is relating that MYSTERY to a mystery that is not as well known… I stated that precisely so that you would not think that I think that marraige is only love and dedication or something (I did previously say that dedication AND love are both aspects of marraige… not in so many words though).

…I feel like you have some sort of bias against what I am saying… like you think that I believe something which I do not believe… you feel that we are at odds, while I am pretty sure that we agree with one another… semantics is the only thing separating our ideas…

 

[truevaticanii]

No one said that, but you seem to think you are.

Just because many people believe something does not make it the Truth.

I find it interesting that a member of the laity seems to know more about the religious life than those who actually live it and in living it have studied in a way that a lay person can not.

I am with Sr Laurel on this, we have told you what we believe, what we live, as well as what the Church says in the matter.

There is nothing more to discuss.

You are very right in saying so Brother… quantity is not quality.
I may be a member of the laity, but do not underestimate me… one of my good friends is a nun and another, a monk. You do not know my knowledge of Theology–of the Bible even! And, my knowledge of the Bible and of Theology tells me that Christ speaks to us in ways that we will understand so long as we look at them in light of our Catholic faith… I know what the Church teaches, and what you have said is perhaps what I believe but the way you have presented it is not clear… and without reading what you have said in light of what I have said… you cause others to believe that Christ’s allegories and such cannot apply to everyone! And you have not answered me as to how your statements do not do this!

Before you are a religious, a priest, etc. you are a member of the Church and as such you are married to Christ… but not literally my brother, no, Christ is saying that we are dedicated to each other, we need one another, we are bonded through a beautiful union of love, etc. …yet we are not producing literal children… we did not marry each other… no.

And do you agree with this? Do you agree that as they would say “in a sense” the whole Church is the Bride of Christ? of course, otherwise you are teaching a gospel which goes against the True gospel.

Well, if this is true my brother, than no matter what vocation you have, you are married to Christ, not individually, no, but as a Church.

And like a marraige, we are all bonded to the Church in a union of love, we are dedicated to the Church, etc. and so “in a sense” we are all married to the Church… we all are apart of that on holy priesthood of Jesus Christ who is the bridegroom of the Church… no we are not Christ, but I am merely rewording what the Bible already tells us…

I am not trying to proclaim that something is doctrine which is not… I am merely trying to stress the fact that the way you have responded to this discussion–you have made it sound as if the Bible cannot speak truly enough to everyone in the parables, allegories, etc. which God has given us to reveal His Divine Truth.

 

[truevaticanii]

I will say it once again… I think we agree with one another… it is just that semantics has gotten in the way of this realization.

I deeply respect all of you and I thank you for all that you do for the Church.

Here is what I believe:

1. The Church is the Bride of Christ, and that statement is true for the Church–all people of the Church. Yet this is not saying that those of the Church are married to Christ.
2. Those of the Church are married to the Church in a sense because we are bonded to the Church with love, we are dedicated to the Church, we are called to sacrifice for the Church, etc. Yet this is not saying that those of the Church are actually married to the Church.

…and I guess it does not bother me so much that you sounded like you were saying that Christ’s similes and allegories and whatnot do not apply to or work for each person as it does bother me that it sounds as if you are saying that the objective truth behind what Christ is actually symbolically getting across to us is only true for some people as a subjective truth.

…and this is not directed at specific vocations, as you are directing it to, but this is directed to all people of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

truevaticanii:
The point is simple. The Church is Christ’s bride. As we make up the body of the Church, we also make up the bride of Christ. But this is a corporate relationship, since none of us is the Church. Together we make up the Church. As a body, we make up the bride of Christ.

The point here is that as individuals, religious are not brides or bridgrooms. Neither are priests. Christ makes no reference to individual religious or priests as brides or bridegrooms. My question is very simple. Why insist on giving us a label that we feel does not adequately describe us?

If you look carefully, the label is not even fair. Religious women are brides of Christ, religious brothers and priests are spouses to the Church. Why are religious women brides of Christ and religious brothers and clerics spouses to the Church? This is sexist. Because they are women, they can be brides of Christ, but males have to be grooms to the Church. There is one weakness in the allegory. Especially when speakiing about religious brothers who make the same vows and commitment as women religious. How can we validly say that the females are brides of Christ, but not the males? As you can see, the allegory falls short here.

Then you have the case of the clerics. There are married clerics, deacons and priests. Do they cease to be bridgrooms of the Church? If they are bridegrooms of the Church, how do we justify their marriage to their spouses? Again, we can use an alelgory. But it does not work, because it creates confusion.

In the end, all of us have a covenant relationship with God and his Church. It is probably better language to use the word covenant, than marriage. I’m not proposing that we ban the use of the term marriage when trying to explain a clerical or religious vocation, as long as it is understood that it’s just a metaphor.

But you’re insisting on it as if it were something that we must accept. But you will not find it in any religious rule or constitution. There is not religious order that has the imagery in their rule. The five rules that exist in the Church do not use the term marriage. They do use the term “covenant”: Augustinian, Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, and Basilian. These are the only religious rules in existence in today’s Church.

That being said, there are individual congregations who have their own statutes, not religious rules, who do use the term marriage in their constitution. They have a right to use it, becaues it’s an internal use.

Maybe what you’re missing here is that there is a difference between the internal use of a term and a universal use. The term marriage has been an internal use in some congregations and abbeys of nuns. But that not universal. It should not be taken out of that context. It is permissible for them. It is not permissible to apply it to every religious institute, especially if it’s in contradiction to the rule for those orders that have a rule. Those of us who have a rule, must use the language of our founders. We cannot trump that language or introduce something foreign, unless the rule allows for it. There are certain areas where the rules written by religious founders allow for adaptation and edition according to the needs of time and place. There are other points in which the founders did not allow for variances from their words.

I know that in the rule of St. Francis, there is no allowance for the term marriage. The word that comes up over and over again is “brother”. We are brothers to Christ and brothers to the Church, not spouses. We we were to insert the word spouse, it would undermine the word brother. For Francis it was more important that we be brothers to Christ, to each other and to his people. The word brother appears in the rule over 1,000 times. It’s pretty clear. We are brothers to Christ and his Church. You’re not going to get Franciscans to buy into the spouse image, because it would mean that we would be in conflict with the mind of Francis. Francis’ voice is final. In his last terstament he makes sure that we recall that we are brothers to Christ and the Church and his sons. Observe that he does not refer to us as sons of the Church. He refers to us as HIS sons. This is binding upon us by canon law.

I would leave this alone and let each religious community and each secular cleric work it out according to the rules and customs of his place or his religious order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Br JR,
Great post.

What bothers me most when attempting to use marriage imagery for religious life and Holy Orders is the fact that it is diminishing marriage to the unitive function alone.

Marriage has two purposes, unitive and procreative.

Also in marriage two become one, that image does not work with religious life or Holy Orders.

Again, I believe this is a case of those outside of religious life/Holy Orders trying to paint us with what they understand and force us to follow it.

For me, religious life is a family.

 

[SRLAUREL]

Br JR,
Great post.

What bothers me most when attempting to use marriage imagery for religious life and Holy Orders is the fact that it is diminishing marriage to the unitive function alone.

Marriage has two purposes, unitive and procreative.

Also in marriage two become one, that image does not work with religious life or Holy Orders.

Again, I believe this is a case of those outside of religious life/Holy Orders trying to paint us with what they understand and force us to follow it.

For me, religious life is a family.

And for me, consecrated/vowed eremitical life (technically I am not a religious since I do not live in community) and my own experience of Christ is strongly nuptial, but even with that being true I just cannot say, “I am married to Christ” for I am unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom. I work towards union with Christ, of course (or he works towards that in and with me), but we aren’t there yet and will not be this side of death, most likely. Another reason, it seems to me, to eschew the notion of marriage.

Personally I am less troubled by what seems a reduction to the unitive function of marriage, because I see the procreative as a natural profession of sexual or married love — the natural outflowing of the unitive dimension. Evenso, I do agree that by speaking of religious as married to Christ we demean marriage itself. Again, Christ and I are not one flesh and though we are covenanted to one another in specific and profound ways, they are not the ways a married couple are united to or covenanted with one another.

I know the notion of being married to Christ is a romantic one and possibly a way of understanding something that seems to be too countercultural for the non-religious to understand (or explain) otherwise, but it is simply not the experience of most religious men or women. Fortunately, the Church has not turned to this imagery to explain the theology of religious life or the theology of the vows. That she has not should caution people against imposing such imagery on those who live the life despite their protestations of inaccuracy or existential untruth.

Best regards,

 

[truevaticanii]

The point is simple. The Church is Christ’s bride. As we make up the body of the Church, we also make up the bride of Christ. But this is a corporate relationship, since none of us is the Church. Together we make up the Church. As a body, we make up the bride of Christ.

The point here is that as individuals, religious are not brides or bridgrooms. Neither are priests. Christ makes no reference to individual religious or priests as brides or bridegrooms. My question is very simple. Why insist on giving us a label that we feel does not adequately describe us?

If you look carefully, the label is not even fair. Religious women are brides of Christ, religious brothers and priests are spouses to the Church. Why are religious women brides of Christ and religious brothers and clerics spouses to the Church? This is sexist. Because they are women, they can be brides of Christ, but males have to be grooms to the Church. There is one weakness in the allegory. Especially when speakiing about religious brothers who make the same vows and commitment as women religious. How can we validly say that the females are brides of Christ, but not the males? As you can see, the allegory falls short here.

Then you have the case of the clerics. There are married clerics, deacons and priests. Do they cease to be bridgrooms of the Church? If they are bridegrooms of the Church, how do we justify their marriage to their spouses? Again, we can use an alelgory. But it does not work, because it creates confusion.

In the end, all of us have a covenant relationship with God and his Church. It is probably better language to use the word covenant, than marriage. I’m not proposing that we ban the use of the term marriage when trying to explain a clerical or religious vocation, as long as it is understood that it’s just a metaphor.

But you’re insisting on it as if it were something that we must accept. But you will not find it in any religious rule or constitution. There is not religious order that has the imagery in their rule. The five rules that exist in the Church do not use the term marriage. They do use the term “covenant”: Augustinian, Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, and Basilian. These are the only religious rules in existence in today’s Church.

That being said, there are individual congregations who have their own statutes, not religious rules, who do use the term marriage in their constitution. They have a right to use it, becaues it’s an internal use.

Maybe what you’re missing here is that there is a difference between the internal use of a term and a universal use. The term marriage has been an internal use in some congregations and abbeys of nuns. But that not universal. It should not be taken out of that context. It is permissible for them. It is not permissible to apply it to every religious institute, especially if it’s in contradiction to the rule for those orders that have a rule. Those of us who have a rule, must use the language of our founders. We cannot trump that language or introduce something foreign, unless the rule allows for it. There are certain areas where the rules written by religious founders allow for adaptation and edition according to the needs of time and place. There are other points in which the founders did not allow for variances from their words.

I know that in the rule of St. Francis, there is no allowance for the term marriage. The word that comes up over and over again is “brother”. We are brothers to Christ and brothers to the Church, not spouses. We we were to insert the word spouse, it would undermine the word brother. For Francis it was more important that we be brothers to Christ, to each other and to his people. The word brother appears in the rule over 1,000 times. It’s pretty clear. We are brothers to Christ and his Church. You’re not going to get Franciscans to buy into the spouse image, because it would mean that we would be in conflict with the mind of Francis. Francis’ voice is final. In his last terstament he makes sure that we recall that we are brothers to Christ and the Church and his sons. Observe that he does not refer to us as sons of the Church. He refers to us as HIS sons. This is binding upon us by canon law.

I would leave this alone and let each religious community and each secular cleric work it out according to the rules and customs of his place or his religious order.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I totally agree with this… I just wanted to here you say this before you said anything else:

“The point is simple. The Church is Christ’s bride. As we make up the body of the Church, we also make up the bride of Christ. But this is a corporate relationship, since none of us is the Church. Together we make up the Church. As a body, we make up the bride of Christ.”

like i said before… semantics.

 

[JReducation]

I totally agree with this… I just wanted to here you say this before you said anything else:

“The point is simple. The Church is Christ’s bride. As we make up the body of the Church, we also make up the bride of Christ. But this is a corporate relationship, since none of us is the Church. Together we make up the Church. As a body, we make up the bride of Christ.”

like i said before… semantics.

At this point then, I would suggest that you let this issue go. It does not affect you or your journey. Let it go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br JR,
Great post.

What bothers me most when attempting to use marriage imagery for religious life and Holy Orders is the fact that it is diminishing marriage to the unitive function alone.

Marriage has two purposes, unitive and procreative.

Also in marriage two become one, that image does not work with religious life or Holy Orders.

Again, I believe this is a case of those outside of religious life/Holy Orders trying to paint us with what they understand and force us to follow it.

For me, religious life is a family.

This is another reason why these allegories don’t work. Here is another good example. As a Carmelite your tradition views the religious community as a family. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s predominantly a family of clerics.

In my Franciscan tradition, religious life is a brotherhood, not even a family as such. If you remember correctly, Franciscans don’t have Priors or Abbots. Therefore, we don’t have a FATHER. In fact, it is penalized under pain of sin, in the Franciscan rule, for anyone to claim the title Abbot or Prior. We have Ministers and they govern at the will and pleasure of the brotherhood. They are not allowed to make unilateral decisions, except in calling men to Holy Orders. It’s the only decision that rule allows them to make unilaterally. This is a good paradigm of family, as in a family there is a father or mother. Among Franciscan men there are no Fathers. You can’t have a family without fathers. Our paradigm is one of brothers bound by one single father, Francis of Assisi. And Francis never claimed for himself the title spouse of the Church. He identified himself as a brother to the Church…

As we move from one religious family to another the paradigms are very different. Since the paradigms are different, the allegories don’t work across the board. I know that in the Benedictine tradition the imagery is that of Sons. That’s why they have Abbots, meaning Father. A monk is not a spouse of the Church, he is a son of the Church.

The Dominican tradition uses a paradigm similar to that of the Carmelites. They are a family with a Prior. I know that the Dominicans follow the Rule of St. Augustine. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the Augustinian tradition uses the same paradigm, a family with a brother who is the first (Prior) among his brothers.

I know no religious families of men who use the marriage imagery to describe their relationship to the Church or to God. They all seem to use either the filial or the fraternal model, which is much more concrete and visible.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[brigid12]

Ok so i just wanted to know something whos a nuns husband God or Jesus, well me and my friend was talking on facebook today and i she wants to be a carmelite nun to and i askd her and she was like i really dont know that one but she said she was going to ask some of the carmelites next week. So im just asking you guys.

thanks.

Yes

 

[SRLAUREL]

Personally I am less troubled by what seems a reduction to the unitive function of marriage, because I see the procreative as a natural profession of sexual or married love — the natural outflowing of the unitive dimension. Evenso, I do agree that by speaking of religious as married to Christ we demean marriage itself. Again, Christ and I are not one flesh and though we are covenanted to one another in specific and profound ways, they are not the ways a married couple are united to or covenanted with one another.

Best regards,

Profession in the above paragraph is wrong. I THINK I was going for either the word procession (though that’s a bit strange) or progression (also a bit strange). In any case the idea was that procreation is a natural result or fruit of the unitive function of marriage. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[JReducation]

Profession in the above paragraph is wrong. I THINK I was going for either the word procession (though that’s a bit strange) or progression (also a bit strange). In any case the idea was that procreation is a natural result or fruit of the unitive function of marriage. Sorry for the mistake.

I had not noticed. I type so fast that I often don’t realize the mistakes until after I’ve posted. I can see how you made this one. The good thing is that most of us simply look at the first and last letters of the word, if we’re reading very quickly and we don’t notice the mispelling.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is another reason why these allegories don’t work. Here is another good example. As a Carmelite your tradition views the religious community as a family. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it’s predominantly a family of clerics.

Yes we speak of the Carmelite family in our Constitutions and yes the two male orders, O.Carm. and O,C.D., are clerical orders but we include the female branches as well as the third orders as part of that family so I would not call it a family of clerics.