Priestly State of Life More Blessed?

[Ocarm]

Is there somewhere in the Catechism that notes this is the teaching of the Church?

Perhaps surprisingly, it is included within the 1983 code of canon law, which often includes so-called ‘theological canons’ to provide a rationale for related juridical statements:

*Can. 573 §1. The life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels is a stable form of living by which the faithful, following Christ more closely under the action of the Holy Spirit, are totally dedicated to God who is loved most of all, so that, having been dedicated by a new and special title to His honor, to the building up of the Church, and to the salvation of the world, they strive for the perfection of charity in the service of the kingdom of God and, having been made an outstanding sign in the Church, foretell the heavenly glory.

§2. The Christian faithful freely assume this form of living in institutes of consecrated life canonically erected by competent authority of the Church. Through vows or other sacred bonds according to the proper laws of the institutes, they profess the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience and, through the charity to which the counsels lead, are joined in a special way to the Church and its mystery.*

And more explicitly:

Can. 599 The evangelical counsel of chastity assumed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which is a sign of the world to come and a source of more abundant fruitfulness in an undivided heart, entails the obligation of perfect continence in celibacy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here is a good Catholic site that gives a very good historical presentation on this teaching.

religious-vocation.com/

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks.

I still disagree that this is dogma. Nothing I’ve read convinces me otherwise.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks.

I still disagree that this is dogma. Nothing I’ve read convinces me otherwise.

Whether we call it a dogma or not, we have to believe what the Church says about it. Let’s caerfully examine what the Council of Trent said.

Council of Trent
“If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

Let him be anathema is a very strong condemnation. It is only used for apostates and heretics. As you probably already know, it means that you should be left outside the Church. When the Church goes to the extremes of saying that if you do not hold this you suffer the same consequences as an apostate or a heretic, that’s serious business. The decrees by Trent have never been retracted. They have been reworded to greater clarification. But I’m only aware of one thing that was decreed by Trent that was ammended, not even retracted, that was the Council’s statement on the Tridentine form of the mass.

But that was done almost right after the Council. The religious order complained that their rights were being violated, since they had their own forms. The popes had to back peddle and concede their point. But this was not a retraction, it was more of an ammendment.

On this point, concerning consecrated celibacy, there has never been either a retraction or an ammendment saying that sometimes you don’t have to believe this. The only difference is that the Church today uses language that’s a little more theological and less legalistic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

With respect to why it’s directly spousal… the homily and the consecratory prayer itself makes it quite clear that this is a spousal vocation, and that consecrated virgins possess what earthly marriage represents.

This would be union with God, correct? What kind of interior union with God is it, though? It’s not “Mystical Marriage,” the state of perfect union with God that some saints received. Mystical Marriage would seem to be as close as souls can get to union with God on Earth . . . except for the interior transformation of consecrated virgins, which is something else, yet nonetheless very deep and heavenly. What kind of an inner transformation do they go through that gives them the heavenly marriage in the here and now?

This interior transformation, unlike “Mystical Marriage” (which I’m aware is a completely different phenomenon) is not directly experienced through total love, total purity, and constant awareness of God’s Presence like it is in those that receive Mystical Marriage. The Mystical Marriage is directly experienced by the soul and lived incessantly, in super-abundant joy and constant union with the will of God. It leads souls to the very brink of perfection. That experience of marriage is extraordinarily intimate, yet the heavenly marriage of the consecrated virgin is not this kind of a change. It is not directly and constantly “felt,” and seems very different in nature. I don’t know what kind of direct spiritual affects it has yet . . . I don’t fully understand.

I can see how the virgin’s exterior lifestyle and self-giving to God becomes spousal in ways that differ from religious, but I don’t understand of what the interior transformation consists.

I appreciate your long posts. I understand more than I did as a result of them, and I am interested in learning more .

 

[SerraSemper]

This would be union with God, correct? What kind of interior union with God is it, though? It’s not “Mystical Marriage,” the state of perfect union with God that some saints received. Mystical Marriage would seem to be as close as souls can get to union with God on Earth . . . except for the interior transformation of consecrated virgins, which is something else, yet nonetheless very deep and heavenly. What kind of an inner transformation do they go through that gives them the heavenly marriage in the here and now?
.

In response, it is to be noted that the Church considers consecrated virgins to have a “mystical espousal” to Christ:

Can. 604 §1 The order of virgins is also to be added to these forms of consecrated life. Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

Remember, we are talking about a public state in life, not the personal holiness of the individuals therein. The status or state of the cv is that of bride of Christ. She images most clearly and perfectly the Church as bride, mother, and virgin, and shares with the Church the title of Bride of Christ. The consecrated virgin can truly say that God has put “a seal upon my heart” and this reality of her being a virgin garden enclosed will be rewarded in the special honor given to virgins in heaven.

Whether or not the consecrated virgin fully lives up to her lofty vocation and attains the transforming union in this life is up to her cooperation with the graces God has given her. What the mystics call the spiritual espousals is not the same thing as her espousals with the Lord, although it has a similar name. The mystical interior life is about the growth of charity in the soul and the transformation into Christ so to speak. The closeness of the relationship between the soul and God in the highest degrees have been called espousals or union as this is the closest our language can reflect that unity or one-on-one relationship God has with that soul.

To make this point more clear. Priests are in the hierarchy. A priest could theoretically live his entire life in the state of mortal sin. Now, this would not affect the validity of the sacraments he does. But it would certainly put his interior spiritual life at great risk and a person with sanctifying grace would be in a much higher position spiritually speaking than his. Yet, hierarchically, the state of being a priest, of being an alter Christus would be higher than that of a non-ordained person in the cleric vs. non cleric paradigm. Yet, that is not the only paradigm out there, as there is also the consecrated state. St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the state of a religious sister or brother is higher than the state of being a priest. Again, when you are talking about states in life, the consecrated virgin’s state is that of being a bride, a spouse of Christ. The priest is to be another Christ. The religious man or woman is to be a person vowed to the evangelical counsels, live communally, and be separated from the world. The only vocation or state which is simply spousal is that of the consecrated virgin (and of married persons).

To recap. Directly spousal has to do with the essence of the vocation or state. All other vocations are indirectly spousal except marriage. Marriage reflects the mystery of Christ’s nuptial relationship with the Church but the consecrated virgin has that direct spousal relationship with Christ that the Church has with him. This is a state of being. Just as a married person can be anywhere in the spiritual, interior, so can a consecrated virgin. That is a separate issue from the vocation. I have no more to say on this issue. If you are truly interested in this matter, feel free to read the relevant documents. A lot of the theology can be found at www.consecratedvirgins.org.

 

[simple_soul]

This would be union with God, correct? What kind of interior union with God is it, though? It’s not “Mystical Marriage,” the state of perfect union with God that some saints received. Mystical Marriage would seem to be as close as souls can get to union with God on Earth . . . except for the interior transformation of consecrated virgins, which is something else, yet nonetheless very deep and heavenly. What kind of an inner transformation do they go through that gives them the heavenly marriage in the here and now?

This interior transformation, unlike “Mystical Marriage” (which I’m aware is a completely different phenomenon) is not directly experienced through total love, total purity, and constant awareness of God’s Presence like it is in those that receive Mystical Marriage. The Mystical Marriage is directly experienced by the soul and lived incessantly, in super-abundant joy and constant union with the will of God. It leads souls to the very brink of perfection. That experience of marriage is extraordinarily intimate, yet the heavenly marriage of the consecrated virgin is not this kind of a change. It is not directly and constantly “felt,” and seems very different in nature. I don’t know what kind of direct spiritual affects it has yet . . . I don’t fully understand.

I can see how the virgin’s exterior lifestyle and self-giving to God becomes spousal in ways that differ from religious, but I don’t understand of what the interior transformation consists.
I appreciate your long posts. I understand more than I did as a result of them, and I am interested in learning more .

*Hi Lief,

I am wondering if it would help our understanding of the consecarated virgin’s relationship with Jesus Christ if we compared it to the relationship a wife would have with her husband?

 

[emily123]

Hi, Brother JR,
Were you able to find out whether married people can be consecrated? It is very interesting reading your posts. I am really learning a lot!

 

[simple_soul]

This would be union with God, correct? What kind of interior union with God is it, though? It’s not “Mystical Marriage,” the state of perfect union with God that some saints received. Mystical Marriage would seem to be as close as souls can get to union with God on Earth . . . except for the interior transformation of consecrated virgins, which is something else, yet nonetheless very deep and heavenly. What kind of an inner transformation do they go through that gives them the heavenly marriage in the here and now?

This interior transformation, unlike “Mystical Marriage” (which I’m aware is a completely different phenomenon) is not directly experienced through total love, total purity, and constant awareness of God’s Presence like it is in those that receive Mystical Marriage. The Mystical Marriage is directly experienced by the soul and lived incessantly, in super-abundant joy and constant union with the will of God. It leads souls to the very brink of perfection. That experience of marriage is extraordinarily intimate, yet the heavenly marriage of the consecrated virgin is not this kind of a change. It is not directly and constantly “felt,” and seems very different in nature. I don’t know what kind of direct spiritual affects it has yet . . . I don’t fully understand.

I can see how the virgin’s exterior lifestyle and self-giving to God becomes spousal in ways that differ from religious, but I don’t understand of what the interior transformation consists.
I appreciate your long posts. I understand more than I did as a result of them, and I am interested in learning more .

*Dear Lief,

Since my last post I have been thinking about it some more and in understanding the language being used more clearly and in rereading what you, Br. JR, and SerraSemper have said I just want to clarify that I do not believe my last post to be an accurate description.

I believe this would be more accurate:

The difference between “Mystical Marriage” and that of the “Mystical Espousal” as in the consecrated virgin’s case. I looked up the word “espousal” and it led to “betrothed/betroth” which would be "a promise to marry. The Mystical Espousal would then seem to be like a long engagement. May be they would reach “Mystical Marriage” maybe they won’t but they are still Mystically espoused to Christ. The Consecrated Virgin still has the call to holiness that we all have to respond to.

Do you think this makes any sense?

 

[John_of_Woking]

Is the priestly and/or virginal state of life more blessed than married life? If so, why? Could this this imply that the sacrament of Holy Orders confers more grace than the sacrament of Matrimony? See 1 Corinthians 7:1-9.

(i) Yes by some distance. Your vocation is your vocation though…some are called to be giant sunflowers in the garden of God (such as Holy priests, bishops), some are called to be garden shrubs (me in my married state)…All these flowers grow in God’s Garden (the Church) and are nurtured by the Life-Giving Sun/Son (the Sacraments). If we fulfill our vocation we will go to Heaven where we will be as happy as we can be…but our capacity for God will vary according to our calling.

 

[JReducation]

(i) Yes by some distance. Your vocation is your vocation though…some are called to be giant sunflowers in the garden of God (such as Holy priests, bishops), some are called to be garden shrubs (me in my married state)…All these flowers grow in God’s Garden (the Church) and are nurtured by the Life-Giving Sun/Son (the Sacraments). If we fulfill our vocation we will go to Heaven where we will be as happy as we can be…but our capacity for God will vary according to our calling.

I like the garden analogy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Roy5]

A couple mof brief thoughts

 1. Nothing I can think of in th natural sphere is superior to a married, devoted, loving mother and father, who give of themselves over many years to the love and nurture of their children. They are not financed by any church. Many, over the years, struggle to provide food for their table. They confront all sorts of tests, frustrations and disappointments - sick children, rebellious teens, heavy expenses, much more. I do not demean the priesthood for a moment, of course, as they are almost always dedicated clergy. But they usually have a security that comes from being part of the larger organization. They don't have to fret about supporting a wife and children. They don't have to endure the heartbreaks of losing a child, perhaps, or having a spouse pass away. They seldom have to worry about their retirement as they are taken care of. And we could go on and on.

  2. Why does the Church consistently seem to elevate virginity above the married woman and mother? Who among us would be here without a mother? Who has done more for most of us than our mothers? True, the church does not put mothers down, but why is virginity better than a beautiful marriage? Even Paul stated that a bishop should have only one wife. 1 Tim. 3:2. That certainly suggests that marriage is not only honorable but that the clergy should be permitted to marry. I predict that that change will come with time and will open the priesthood to thousands of healthy and devoted young men.

  3. Too often the Church depends upon ancient tradition. Saints. church fathers, popes from centuries ago, and doctors of the church frequently are cited as proof of this or that. I have read many of them, and some were positively brilliant for their time. But they had poor telescopes and no microscopes and often accepted various superstitions of their age. How many thought the world was flat, taught the 3-tier view of the universe, believed that demons caused insanity, swallowed wild accounts of levitation, bilocation and many other wild stories? Someone in an earlier posting quoted St. Thomas Aquinas. Certainly an incredible mind, a prodigious scholar and writer. Still, he wrote that heretics should be turned over to civil authorities to be executed. So, how authoritative are such statements as that? 

  God bless all people of faith, and may religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why does the Church consistently seem to elevate virginity above the married woman and mother?

The Church does not elevate virginity, God does.

 

[simple_soul]

(i) Yes by some distance. Your vocation is your vocation though…some are called to be giant sunflowers in the garden of God (such as Holy priests, bishops), some are called to be garden shrubs (me in my married state)…All these flowers grow in God’s Garden (the Church) and are nurtured by the Life-Giving Sun/Son (the Sacraments). If we fulfill our vocation we will go to Heaven where we will be as happy as we can be…but our capacity for God will vary according to our calling.

*I agree I like this analogy. I believe we should focus our attention on our vocation and how we can fulfill it, or better yet, how God the Gardener can perfect it in us, and enjoying that perfection. Verses worrying about why we were not called to be, or why we are not just like giant sunflowers or lilies.
When it all comes down to it, would any of us really want to trade ourselves or our lives for some one else’s?
I for one just want to be whatever God wants me to be. I know that He will complete me and my capacity for Him will be not lacking in any way, even if I am just a shrub in His garden, if I just trust Him and His will for me.

 

[JReducation]

A couple mof brief thoughts

 1. Nothing I can think of in th natural sphere is superior to a married, devoted, loving mother       2. Why does the Church consistently seem to elevate virginity above the married woman and mother? .

Actually he raised virginity, period. He chose a married woman to be the mother of his son, but kept her virginity intact before conception, during her pregnancy, and after giving birth.

If we look a the example of Mary we can see how the state of wife and mother are dignified in the eyes of God. By choosing to keep Mary a virgin, he is exalting virginity, but he is not taking anything away from the dignity of wives and mothers.

Jesus chose virginity for himself and advised those who have ears to hear.

Paul said that if you could not lead a celibate like as he did, then you should marry. He did not say that priests had to be married. In fact, neither he nor John ever married.

The Church is only echoing what comes from God himself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[John_of_Woking]

I like the garden analogy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks Brother.

Saint Therese of Lisieux explored the image in a Story of the Soul and it has always remained with me.

 

[John_of_Woking]

A couple mof brief thoughts

“How many… believed that demons caused insanity, swallowed wild accounts of levitation, bilocation and many other wild stories?”
quote]

I will allow other erudite minds to answer your main points. I will say that Scripture speaks of holy eunuchs for the Kingdom and Christ’s unmarried priestly life is the model par excellence

I will content myself by stating that I still do believe demons cause insanity (although not in a lot of cases and only if there is human consent)…Levitation may occur to Holy Saints (but also practitioners of the dark arts)- it does happen though. As for bilocation…some Holy Saints were granted this rare gift by God to promote his Glory through their works in multiple places such as Padre Pio

Peace of Christ

 

[JReducation]

A couple mof brief thoughts

“How many… believed that demons caused insanity, swallowed wild accounts of levitation, bilocation and many other wild stories?”
quote]

I will allow other erudite minds to answer your main points. I will say that Scripture speaks of holy eunchs for the Kingdom and Christ’s unmarried priestly life is the model par excellence

I will content myself by stating that I still do believe demons cause insanity (although not in a lot of cases and only if there is human consent)…Levitation may occur to Holy Saints (but also practitioners of the dark arts) it does happen though and bilocation…some Holy Saints were granted this rare gift by God to promote his Glory through their works in multiple places such as Padre Pio

Peace of Christ

I’m not sure what this has to do with marriage and celibacy, but celibacy is not a superstition. Moving right along. As both a psychologist and theologian, there are caess of mental illness that have been reported in books that have no other explanation but the presence of evil. Read William James. He’s an expert on this stuff.

Levitation, while it is uncommon, it is not a superstition. Many people have witnessed it. St. Teresa of Avila was seen to levitate by those who did not believe what they saw. St. Pascal Baylon was also seen to levitate and his superior refused to believe it when he was told about it. Then one day he walked into the chapel and saw Paschal praying, on his knees, about six feet off the floor.

Bilocation has been witnessed by people who were not Catholic as well as Catholics and no one can find a reasonable explanation. The people who have witnessed it did not know what they were looking at. They did not know that Padre Pio was still in Italy. They saw him in Milwaukee, I believe.

Don’t forget the stigmata. Francis of Assisi was the first person to have a visible stigmata. There was an eye witness who saw the seraph, saw the light and saw Francis collapse. When he ran to help Francis, the seraph was gone and Francis was bathed in blood. Fr. Pio’s stigmata disappeared right before everyone’s eyes the moment he died. There were doctors and other friars in the room when he died. So we have seen the stigmata come and disappear, by rational people.

None of it can be explained and all of it has witnesses. That does not have anything to do with with celibacy. Celibacy can also be explained and it does not need witnesses.

By the way, consecrated celibacy is not just for priests. Whoever created the thread may not have known this. In fact, we have 20 out of 22 Catholic Churches that have alwasy ordained married men and still do so today. Consecrted celibacy actually began with the Apostle Paul but was adopted as a way of life by monks and nuns. Much later do the Roman and Marinite Catholics adopt celibacy as a condition for ordiantion. By that time, religious brother and religious women had been doing it for almost 1,000 years. Many priests became brothers, but they had to be celibate in order to become brothers. They wanted this life as a way of consecrating their lives to God. By the time we reach the year 1100, there are more priests in the monastery than outside of it. All the priests who are brothers at this time are celibate. Because you can’t be a consecrated religious witout celibacy.

What happened was that the consecrated life took off with so much force in the Roman Church, that the standard of celibacy was adopted for the secular man who wanted to be a priest. But there were hundreds of thousands of celibate priests whom we don’t hear about, because we often refer to them as Brother, monk or friar. Not all monks were priests and not all priests were monks. But all monks and friars were celibate brothers, whether they were priests or not.

By sheer numbers this became the norm for everyone entering the priesthood, whether you were going to be a religious or not.

The Eastern Churches did not adopt this, because religious life is still very far behind the Roman Church. They have very few religious. They have not had that strong influence of a celibate life lived in community. However, they do have a rule. If the wife of the priest or the deacon dies, these men cannot remarry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Whether we call it a dogma or not, we have to believe what the Church says about it. Let’s caerfully examine what the Council of Trent said.

Council of Trent
"If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema." …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.” (cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 225)

Let him be anathema is a very strong condemnation. It is only used for apostates and heretics. As you probably already know, it means that you should be left outside the Church. When the Church goes to the extremes of saying that if you do not hold this you suffer the same consequences as an apostate or a heretic, that’s serious business. The decrees by Trent have never been retracted. They have been reworded to greater clarification. But I’m only aware of one thing that was decreed by Trent that was ammended, not even retracted, that was the Council’s statement on the Tridentine form of the mass.

But that was done almost right after the Council. The religious order complained that their rights were being violated, since they had their own forms. The popes had to back peddle and concede their point. But this was not a retraction, it was more of an ammendment.

On this point, concerning consecrated celibacy, there has never been either a retraction or an ammendment saying that sometimes you don’t have to believe this. The only difference is that the Church today uses language that’s a little more theological and less legalistic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Trent, and many other ecumenical councils, “anathematized” things that later were found to be at least coherent with authentic tradition. So we can’t rely solely on an isolated pronouncement.

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps surprisingly, it is included within the 1983 code of canon law, which often includes so-called ‘theological canons’ to provide a rationale for related juridical statements:

*Can. 573 §1. The life consecrated through the profession of the evangelical counsels is a stable form of living by which the faithful, following Christ more closely under the action of the Holy Spirit, are totally dedicated to God who is loved most of all, so that, having been dedicated by a new and special title to His honor, to the building up of the Church, and to the salvation of the world, they strive for the perfection of charity in the service of the kingdom of God and, having been made an outstanding sign in the Church, foretell the heavenly glory.

§2. The Christian faithful freely assume this form of living in institutes of consecrated life canonically erected by competent authority of the Church. Through vows or other sacred bonds according to the proper laws of the institutes, they profess the evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience and, through the charity to which the counsels lead, are joined in a special way to the Church and its mystery.*

And more explicitly:

Can. 599 The evangelical counsel of chastity assumed for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which is a sign of the world to come and a source of more abundant fruitfulness in an undivided heart, entails the obligation of perfect continence in celibacy.

But chastity is not the same as celibacy, is it?

 

[JReducation]

Trent, and many other ecumenical councils, “anathematized” things that later were found to be at least coherent with authentic tradition. So we can’t rely solely on an isolated pronouncement.

This is kind of a strange pronouncement. Because Trent was responding to two forces. There was a heretical movement that believed that celibacy was contrary to Divine Will because Genesis says that man should be fruitful and multiply. This movement actually merges with the Protestant Reformation. That’s why Protestants often find celibacy to be unscriptural. That was one force.

The other force were the teachings the of the great religious founders: Benedict, Albert, Basil, Augustine, Francis, Dominic and Bernard. They had all written that the consecrated celibate state was superior to the married state, based on what Christ says in the Gospel, what Paul says, and what the Desert Fathers taught. By the time Trent comes around these orders are very angry at the accusation that their way of life was non-scriptural. Trent comes down very hard and states that this is a doctrine that must be accepted or be anathemized.

Trent actually puts into words what the founders of the great religious orders had learned from Sacred Tradition and had taught to religious, clergy and laity. St. Francis and St. Bernard went as far as threatening with excommunication those who challenged this doctrine. In those days, Superiors General and Abbots had a lot of power. They were Ordinaries. They are still Ordinaries today, but their arena of authority is significantly reduced. It’s only within their own ministries. I believe that Bernard may have put it into writing. I know that Francis never wrote it. He preached it and others quoted him, including St. Bonaventure. St. Bonaventure defended the doctrine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF