We have to remember that marriage was designed by God to be only a foreshadow of our ultimate destiny. Marriage is a means to help mankind better understand God. In marriage, the family becomes a domestic church. And in this way, grows to a deeper love and understanding of the Trinitarian nature of God and His relationship with His creatures.
I think that is sound eschatology, in keeping with orthodox Catholic theology. However, it doesn’t address how that vocation can usefully be compared with the vocation of consecrated religious, which is by definition the exact opposite - a state in which no such primary physical relationship is present or possible, and where no comparable family milieu exists. Consecrated life is seen as a sign of the eschatological kingdom still to come, and thus is entirely inappropriate for comparison with marriage, which is a distinctly earthly vocation.
This topic may be confusing to some, because it is difficult for our minds to understand such great mysteries. .
I haven’t seen much confusion on this thread, just a number of unsupported assertions based around the dual beliefs that spousal imagery is the normative understanding of consecrated life, and that it is an accepted teaching of the Church.
But this marital relationship between the consecrated person and Christ has been part of the ordinary magisterium for many centuries. .
The ordinary magisterium does not come into play that casually - fortunately in my very humble opinion -
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
For matters of faith or morals to rise to the level of belonging to the deposit of faith within the ordinary magisterium, they must therefore be universally accepted, consistent with all other teachings of the church, and historically enduring from the earliest age of the church. Spousal imagery in consecrated life does not meet any of those conditions.
Although we do not fully understand it, we nonetheless should give some assent to this traditional understanding, and not downplay it as sentimentalism or trivialize the writings of the saints, who were able to penetrate such mysteries far deeper than we can.
The canonisation of an individual does not grant magisterial status to their works; and even the declaration that their works do not demonstrate error is not a statement that they have the status of authoritative teaching (let alone dogma); indeed, mystical experience is invariably relegated to private revelation. Spousal imagery is certainly not of the stature of heterodoxy or formal error; neither is it official teaching. It is indeed a sentiment, and as I said previously, in itself not harmful and no doubt of value to some people. But it is not a default understanding of consecrated life.
Even Vatican II reaffirmed the spousal relationship between a consecrated virgin and Christ.
I’m not familiar with a V2 document that makes that claim (then again, I’m not familiar with a lot of things, so I’m entirely ready to be corrected). Although some English translations of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and
Vita Consecrata (1996) refer to the consecrated virgin as ‘spouse’ of Christ, the original texts use different terms.
My Latin is very limited, but the canon 604 § 1 of the Code uses the term ‘desponsantur,’ which is usually translated as ‘betrothed.’ CCC 923 also uses this same word.
Vita Consecrata uses ‘sponsae caelestis’ meaning ‘heavenly betrothed’.
The state of betrothal is referenced eschatologically, indicating a promise still to be fulfilled. That is a clearer image in my personal estimation, because it implies the oneness with Christ that is yet to come. That seems to me to be more expressive than imagery which compares consecration to marriage, which is a distinctly earthly rather than eschatological state. Let me be clear that (sadly!) that does not mean consecrated people are holier or more important than married people. If only it did.
What is significant, I think, is that none of these documents make any statement that other forms of consecrated life are similar to such betrothal, and certainly do not use marital imagery.
By the why, why do you say:
Vatican II is in continuity with the other teachings of the church, both in the extraordinary magisterium as expressed in the dogmatic constitutions of the council, and in its summaries of the ordinary magisterium within other non-infallible documents. If it was not, Jesus was lying when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, because an ecumenical council would have taught error.
Best wishes to you, and thank you for keeping discussion of this issue friendly, because on other threads it has become more adversarial.
I’ll just say once more that I don’t think spousal imagery is harmful. But it isn’t theologically sound either. As a devotional practice it is generally harmless and may indeed be very edifying, but it does not rise to the level of teaching or doctrine. Hence the freedom of religious not to embrace it.
Someday, I may get permission to go visit my family there.