Is religious life a holier vocation than marriage?

[Ludovico]

The only dogma that could indicate that religious life is a holier vocation than marriage is Dogma 242 which states that the Sacrament of Order confers spiritual power on the recipient.

Both, the Sacrament of Order and the Sacrament of Matrimony bestow/confer sanctifying grace.
The difference between both is that the Sacrament of Order bestows a spiritual power that the Sacrament of Matrimony doesn’t.

But, does that spiritual power make the recipient holier?

An excommunicated ordained religious possess and can make use of that spiritual power in the case of necessity; such as dispensing last rites.
Then, in this case, there is an unholy ordained religious with spiritual power.
It seems, that in this case, the spiritual power is not making that ordained religious holier.

Then, a religious life could be holier if the ordained religious is in a state of grace and is not a dead member of the Catholic Church, i.e. he has not been excommunicated or discipline in any way.

…
Holy Orders
240 The Sacrament of Order confers sanctifying grace on the recipient.
241 The Sacrament of Order imprints a character on the recipient.
242 The Sacrament of Order confers a permanent spiritual power on the recipient.
243 The ordinary dispenser of all grades of Order, both the sacramental and the non-sacramental, is the validly consecrated Bishop alone.
Matrimony
244 Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God.
245 From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
246 The Sacrament of Matrimony bestows sanctifying grace on the contracting parties.
…

 

[SerraSemper]

“look at the quotes about the dogma of the superiority of the consecrated state over the married state .”

There is not such a dogma.

There are 258 dogmas in the Catholic Church.
Not a single one implies that the consecrated state is superior over the married state.

Please, find such dogma and list it in your reply.

I already gave you the citation for the dogma. Council of Trent. Papal magisterial writings including Sacra Virginitas. The Fathers of the Church. Etc. So, please tell me what your authority is for excluding the clear teachings of the Popes and Councils and Fathers as dogma. Can you tell me how you know for certain what is a dogma and what isn’t? What are the principles for exclusion/inclusion? Why do you think that you have greater authority than the Church for determining this? I’m curious about your methodology because to a canon lawyer - and we would be the ones advising bishops on whether to proceed with a declaration of someone as a heretic - we take something like the Council of Trent’s canon seriously. So, I’m listening. Where are you getting your arbitrary arrangement of dogmas from? A pope? Council? Catechism?

 

[Ludovico]

“Where are you getting your arbitrary arrangement of dogmas from? A pope? Council? Catechism?”

A dogma is any truth that the Church has infallibly defined to be contained in divine revelation—i.e., part of the deposit of faith handed down to the Church from Christ and the apostles.
Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church.

The dogmas of the Catholic Church are not my arbitrary arrangement of dogmas.
The Catholic Church arranged them.

In contemporary Catholic theology, a dogma is a truth that has been infallibly defined by the Church’s Magisterium to be divinely revealed.

Personally, I got acquainted with the Catholic dogmas when I bought the book ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, written by Ludwig Ott.

And, yes, the dogmas were established and arraigned by the numerous Councils of the Church.

 

[SerraSemper]

I have told you that “religious” does not equal “deacons, priests and bishops”. Some religious happen to also have holy orders but we are talking about the consecrated state, namely, those who are members of institutes of consecrated life, diocesan hermits, sacred virgins, consecrated widows in the Eastern Churches (and consecrated but in lay/clerical state members of secular institutes). So, again, I don’t care what you bring up in terms of holy orders because it is irrelevant.

I am also interested in seeing you refute Pope Pius XII who stated that the Council of Trent proclaimed dogma when it treated of consecrated virginity as being superior to marriage. Tell me why you disagree with Pope Piux XII. Cite an authority equal to his or that of a Council of the Church.

 

[SerraSemper]

Personally, I got acquainted with the Catholic dogmas when I bought the book ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, written by Ludwig Ott.

Nice and sweet, but his authority is not greater than a Pope’s.

 

[Ludovico]

“I am also interested in seeing you refute Pope Pius XII who stated that the Council of Trent proclaimed dogma when it treated of consecrated virginity as being superior to marriage. Tell me why you disagree with Pope Piux XII. Cite an authority equal to his or that of a Council of the Church.”

Pope Pius XII didn’t proclame dogma regarding the superiority of consecrated virginity to marriage.
He exercised the infallibility of the papacy without declaring a truth to be divinely revealed. In this case, the truth was not a dogma but merely infallible. Consequently, the Church does not say that it requires divine and catholic faith but merely that it is “to be definitively held.”

If Pope XII had declared the superiority of consecrated virginity to marriage a dogma, it would had been included automatically in the list of dogmas of the Catholic Church.

 

[SerraSemper]

Once more, here are the exact words that the Pope used:

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.

Now tell me why it is that you are saying he says it is “infallible” although he uses the word “dogma”.

 

[Ludovico]

“…his authority is not greater than a Pope’s.”

The Pope, through the ages and the councils, established the dogmas.

 

[SerraSemper]

“…his authority is not greater than a Pope’s.”

The Pope, through the ages and the councils, established the dogmas.

Cool. So let’s repeat this until we understand why you can’t understand the plain meaning of the word deliberately chosen, namely “dogma”. He didn’t use the word “infallible”. He used the word “dogma”. So here we go:

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.

The popes have always taught this. The Councils have repeated taught this. EVen in condemning the donatist heresy. So why exactly are you setting yourself up to deny what Pius XII said of a Council? I mean, you’ve got a Pope saying it and you’ve got a clear infallible teaching of the Council. And enough. Anyone who actually has an open mind will see that Pius XII’s words are what they are. Have a great day.

 

[Ludovico]

I don’t understand how a dogma is not listed in the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ludovico]

Specially, when it was solemnly define as a dogma.
How come is not listed in the dogmas of the Catholic Church?

 

[jack63]

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.

Pius XII’s words are what they are.

…admittedly not the clearest thing a Pope has ever written. He basically refers to the council of Trent, maybe Matthew 19, and St. Paul’s writings without actually defining what “superior” means. The Council of Trent’s dogma is narrow and nuanced on the subject, …as are Matthew 19 and St. Paul’s writings in Corinthians. The council of Trent does not actually use the word superior.

Is there Dogma in the council of Trent…Yes of course. Does it mean mean Celibacy is a holier state. That one is open to a meaningful discussion of which this isn’t…for the most part. Personally, I like what @phil19034 wrote

I don’t think “holier” is the right term.

The Religious Life is a HIGHER vocation, because it’s closer to what life in Heaven is like.

But I would not call it “holier.”

 

[Ludovico]

You’re right. Matthew 19.
Here is the canon law in question:

980 Can. 10. If anyone says that the married state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and happier to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be united in matrimony [cf. Matt. 19:11 f.;1 Cor. 7:25 f.;28-40]: let him be anathema.

This cannon never says that the state of virginity or celibacy is holier than the married state.
It says that it cannot be said that the married state is preferred.
It says that the state of virginity or celibacy are better and happier.
But nowhere it says that one is holier than the other.

Again, the question is “Is religious life a holier vocation than marriage?”
Now the question has been extended to include the state of virginity or celibacy in the context of a religious vocation.

One way or the other, so far, no one has proved that one is holier than the other.
So, I still claim that they are equally holy.

When I am showed that I’m wrong, I will learn from it. And, accept it.

The marriage of St. Joseph and our Blessed Mother The Virgin Mary is the holiest of holies.

 

[phil19034]

Ludovico:

In his Sacra Virginitas encyclical, Pope Pius XII censured the opinion of those who contend that marriage is the ONLY means of…
And, “…use of marriage so holy as to be a FITTER instrument than virginity…”
Pope Pius XII was actually condemning the idea that one vocation is superior to the other.

Incorrect. It is a dogma, and quotes to that effect have already been posted further up. Here is the quote from Sacra Virginitas that repeats the dogma:

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.

“Holier” is the wrong word. Religious Life is Superior or Higher than the Married Life because it’s closer to how we would be in Heaven.

But it’s not “holier.” There have been plenty of unholy and heretical members of the Religious Life, while there have been plenty of married Saints.

“Holier” is the wrong word and your quote does not use it. It says “…superiority over the married state…” it doesn’t say it’s holier than the married state.

Again, that’s because virginity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is HIGHER and SUPERIOR to the married state (because it’s close to Heaven), but again, it’s not automatically holier.

 

[SerraSemper]

Well, that is certainly your opinion, but frankly I don’t have the time to bring you step by step to why the state is superior because it is holier. I have mentioned repeatedly that one must not mistake moral holiness for holiness of state, so I am not sure why you are bringing up immoral members as proof that virginity is not a holier state. Have a great day.

 

[BarbTh]

My two cents worth:
In a sort of way, I think The Church shot Herself in the foot as it were, while being at the same time quite correct. Generally speaking ordinary everyday Catholics are quite confused by the term denoting superior states or vocations.
Theologically speaking, religious life is THE way of perfection in that poverty, chastity and obedience are vowed in community and ideally meant to lead to the perfection of Charity. which does not mean at all that all in religious life are perfect. Nor does it mean that all called to religious life are better than anyone else. A person could conceivably be called by God to religious life as that way of life that best supports him or her attaining salvation and holiness - perhaps due to the structured way of life in a communal setting. I would imagine a religious more humbled by their vocation than elevated.
Nothing is more perfect than the Will of God for a person as to personal vocation…
We are all called to the evangelical counsels (vows made within religious life) in accord with our personal vocation. No matter one’s personal vocation, I think that sanctity or holiness can only be achieved by living out the evangelical counsels whether one knows it or not and in accord with one’s personal vocation.

I have met and known Catholic lay persons for example who are living out poverty, chastity and obedience within their particular vocation and are quite humble and exemplary people, but if I told them that re the evangelical counsels, they would be startled and confused…most often I suspect because poverty, chastity and obedience are thought to belong only and solely to religious life.
Failure of catechesis.

We can structure things as to superior or not for as long as we like and in whatever we like; however, we must be silent, as it were, faced with God’s Will.
Nothing can be superior to The Will of God.

It is very true that without Holy Orders thus the Sacramental Life of The Church and most importantly The Real Presence, that The Church would die out.
Equally, without The Sacrament of Marriage, The Church would die out without the new souls born of marriage - some of whom would be called to Holy Orders.
All the vocations are gifts to The Church and speak to each other. Celibacy is not something one can choose unless God grants the gift of celibacy to whomsoever He Chooses (or Wills) wherever He May Will.

Consecrated life is a sort of structure around the gift of celibacy instituted by The Church where public vows in The Church are concerned (i.e. consecrated life) … consecration where The Order of Virgins are concerned, Marriage does not embrace celibacy, quite the opposite it could be said. How can any vocation or call from God whatsoever be anything but a holy state which can lead to sanctity and holiness - the perfection of Charity.

 

[BarbTh]

Catholic Answers: Dogma | Catholic Answers

Excerpt only: “Church teachings (i.e., doctrines) fall into three classes: (1) those which the Church has authoritatively but not infallibly taught, (2) those which it has infallibly taught, and (3) those which it has infallibly taught to be divinely revealed. Only the third kind are referred to as dogmas in modern usage.”

 

[SerraSemper]

Excerpt only : “Church teachings (i.e., doctrines) fall into three classes: (1) those which the Church has authoritatively but not infallibly taught, (2) those which it has infallibly taught, and (3) those which it has infallibly taught to be divinely revealed. Only the third kind are referred to as dogmas in modern usage.”

Just curious. If Pope Pius XII uses the word dogma, do we think he meant something else? Why would he use a loaded word like dogma if he meant something else?

 

[BarbTh]

Dogma in relation to what exactly?
If you are referring to celibacy per se (I am unsure), then insofar as I am aware it is a dogma of The Church that celibacy is superior to the married state speaking as an objective theological determination and I have not contested that. I uphold it.

Where people can be confused is in not understanding at all the possible vast difference between an objective theological determination and a subjective theological determination. And from the ordinary everyday Catholics I have spoken with on the subject, there is much confusion about celibacy as superior on an objective theological determination scale, and quite true. This is why, I think, many lay Catholics feel that the laity is a second class state of life in The Church and therefore they are thus second class citizens too. The really great importance and dignity of marriage, for example, is undermined. On the other hand, some outside of a celibate state (or even within it) wish to attack celibacy as a superior state theologically and objectively speaking. They are incorrect.

It is the objective theological determination that confuses many.

Another instance where I think The Church has sort of ‘shot Herself in the foot’ is in allowing that attending Sunday Mass and The Sacraments are the criteria for a practising Catholic - without including Charity and the striving to follow The Gospel, therefore Jesus, in that definition.
The bulk of lay people with whom I have spoken with feel that Mass and The Sacraments are sufficient and that striving to follow The Gospel and Jesus is for priests, religious and nuns, consecrated life.
Modern life can be so stressful and time and finance overburdened that many ordinary everyday Catholics in the laity do not read statements, documents etc. coming out of Rome. I had never read anything either until I was given a computer and could access texts, books, documents etc. free of charge. Prior to the internet, there was a charge attached through Catholic bookshops. Nowadays post VII, we have a veritable treasure house of Catholic information and sources available quite free of charge with the internet. But not everyone in the laity can afford a computer with related costs,

A reason, one reason, I chose private vows in the laity was in order to be just one of - rather than somehow set apart from and readily identified as apart from.
Correction: Rather than a reason I chose the vocation I have, it is more I think a sighting of the very real value of remaining one of…just another face in the pews as it were. I had noticed the almost vast difference between chatting with someone over coffee - and that same person talking with a priest or religious. Not always, I know, but there is a group within the group where it does apply.
A criteria for new forms of religious life in The Church is to sight a need and attempt to meet it.

But I have wandered, nothing new, and my apologies.

 

[mythbuster1]

Yes, but only if they persevere. The monk or nun who breaks their vows incurs more intense punishment than a layman, and even if they repent, they will not recover all the glory they lost by their transgression. It is better to marry than to burn with lust; let everyone who seeks the crown count the cost. That is why, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.”