Wonderful investiture of Benedictine postulants in Kansas City [Fr. Z]

[JReducation]

Here’s where I didn’t find them.

usaopnuns.org/

I went to www.op.org, then to the site map for nuns’ websites, where I didn’t find them listed, but found the above website listed under USA Dominican nuns, went to this website and looked through the list on the left of monasteries and they weren’t there.

Where did you find them listed?

I found them at vocation-station.blogspot.com/2008/02/dominican-nuns-lockport.html

You may want to find them by the name of their monastery. Sometimes the names of the monastery appears in different places.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

I did not mean to imply that the Lockport nuns aren’t members of the Dominican Order. This discussion (re Lockport) came up in the context of the ‘bridal’ tradition among two of the oldest cloistered women’s communities, the Benedictines and the Dominicans, and among those affiliated with the mainstream branches. Both the Benedictines and the Dominicans tend to form federations and to be part of them. Virtually every website of every institute of these two great branches will describe their origins. Two of these houses, both ‘orthodox’, cloistered and habited, have a ‘bridal’ clothing ceremony, the Benedictines of Mary Queen of the Apostles, now in Kansas, and these Dominicans. The origin of the Apostles is not clear; it was not on their websites, either in PA, where they came from, or now in Kansas. They are not related to the Solesmes(the VT nuns), to the Primitive Observance(CT and WA), to Germany(CO), or Stanbrook Abbey (MA). The Lockport group isn’t listed in the international website of the Order of Preachers and has no website where they discuss their origins. These houses have not made their origins and relationships with the other cloistered federations clear; therefore the origin of their customs isn’t clear, either. Various posters have implied that the ‘bridal’ tradition is ancient; that it is mandatory; that those professing take vows to become Brides of Christ. In addition to everything else, the color white for weddings didn’t become popular until Queen Victoria’s wedding in 1840. Most people didn’t acquire special clothing for their weddings, other than the best that they owned, because they couldn’t afford it. The use of a special white wedding dress didn’t become commonplace until after mass production of clothing made it much more affordable. In ancient times, the color white was used for sacrifices; in India today, it is used for mourning.

 

[JReducation]

I did not mean to imply that the Lockport nuns aren’t members of the Dominican Order. This discussion (re Lockport) came up in the context of the ‘bridal’ tradition among two of the oldest cloistered women’s communities, the Benedictines and the Dominicans, and among those affiliated with the mainstream branches. Both the Benedictines and the Dominicans tend to form federations and to be part of them. Virtually every website of every institute of these two great branches will describe their origins. Two of these houses, both ‘orthodox’, cloistered and habited, have a ‘bridal’ clothing ceremony, the Benedictines of Mary Queen of the Apostles, now in Kansas, and these Dominicans. The origin of the Apostles is not clear; it was not on their websites, either in PA, where they came from, or now in Kansas. They are not related to the Solesmes(the VT nuns), to the Primitive Observance(CT and WA), to Germany(CO), or Stanbrook Abbey (MA). The Lockport group isn’t listed in the international website of the Order of Preachers and has no website where they discuss their origins. These houses have not made their origins and relationships with the other cloistered federations clear; therefore the origin of their customs isn’t clear, either. Various posters have implied that the ‘bridal’ tradition is ancient; that it is mandatory; that those professing take vows to become Brides of Christ. In addition to everything else, the color white for weddings didn’t become popular until Queen Victoria’s wedding in 1840. Most people didn’t acquire special clothing for their weddings, other than the best that they owned, because they couldn’t afford it. The use of a special white wedding dress didn’t become commonplace until after mass production of clothing made it much more affordable. In ancient times, the color white was used for sacrifices; in India today, it is used for mourning.

The bridal tradition is not that old. It goes back to the late 1800s or early 1900s in some communities. Many of our monasteries use it, but it is not in the Franciscan Ritual.

The title “Bride of Christ” has been debated in many circles, because of the sexist overtones. Friars, monks, canons and clerks also make the same vows as nuns and sisters make. The feeling among many male religious is that the investiture of women religious has been played up to the detriment of male religious. The other argument of equal weight or maybe more is that male religious are not referred to as grooms. Over the years, something very sad happened. People began to promote vocatioins to the priesthood and the sisterhood. The male religious life became “the forgotten vocation,” as Archbishop Timothy Dolan said. He’s very good about this, actually. At every mass that he celebrates he deliberately greets the male religious to help the priests and the laity realize that there are male religious.

The bride analogy has a place when correctly understood that the person is transitioning from one way of life to another, just as a woman tansitions from being single to being a wife. You can also say that a religious (male or female) is the spouse of Jesus Christ in the sense that Jesus is the beloved and there is nothing and no one else with whom that love is shared. There is an intimacy between the religious and Christ, that is not possible for the married person and not appropriate either. I would not expect a married person to embrace destitution, celibacy, absolute obedience to the will of another. These are qualities that would do damage to a marriage. In a marriage they would not be virtuous, but potentially destructive. For a married person to deny his/her spouse intimacy, because all intimacy is reserved for Christ in contrary to the married state.

Entrance into religious life has certain “marital” atrributes, but it’s not a marriage. Notice that I use marital in quotation marks. I prefer mystical attitudes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shoshana]

The bridal tradition is not that old. It goes back to the late 1800s or early 1900s in some communities. Many of our monasteries use it, but it is not in the Franciscan Ritual.

The title “Bride of Christ” has been debated in many circles, because of the sexist overtones. Friars, monks, canons and clerks also make the same vows as nuns and sisters make. The feeling among many male religious is that the investiture of women religious has been played up to the detriment of male religious. The other argument of equal weight or maybe more is that male religious are not referred to as grooms. Over the years, something very sad happened. People began to promote vocatioins to the priesthood and the sisterhood. The male religious life became “the forgotten vocation,” as Archbishop Timothy Dolan said. He’s very good about this, actually. At every mass that he celebrates he deliberately greets the male religious to help the priests and the laity realize that there are male religious.

The bride analogy has a place when correctly understood that the person is transitioning from one way of life to another, just as a woman tansitions from being single to being a wife. You can also say that a religious (male or female) is the spouse of Jesus Christ in the sense that Jesus is the beloved and there is nothing and no one else with whom that love is shared. There is an intimacy between the religious and Christ, that is not possible for the married person and not appropriate either. I would not expect a married person to embrace destitution, celibacy, absolute obedience to the will of another. These are qualities that would do damage to a marriage. In a marriage they would not be virtuous, but potentially destructive. For a married person to deny his/her spouse intimacy, because all intimacy is reserved for Christ in contrary to the married state.

Entrance into religious life has certain “marital” atrributes, but it’s not a marriage. Notice that I use marital in quotation marks. I prefer mystical attitudes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That being said, were there not married people that are saints that have achieved mystical marriage with out Lord…and still be married?

 

[JReducation]

That being said, were there not married people that are saints that have achieved mystical marriage with out Lord…and still be married?

Mystical Marriage is a completely different reality. Mystical Marriage was the name that St. Catherine of Siena gave to the union of the soul with the Divine. This union goes beyond the covenant made by religious vows. It is a state of mystical prayer that cannot be brought on by the individual. It is totally dependent on the grace of God and does not happen too often. But to answer your question, yes it can happen to married people too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Shoshana]

Mystical Marriage is a completely different reality. Mystical Marriage was the name that St. Catherine of Siena gave to the union of the soul with the Divine. This union goes beyond the covenant made by religious vows. It is a state of mystical prayer that cannot be brought on by the individual. It is totally dependent on the grace of God and does not happen too often. But to answer your question, yes it can happen to married people too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you Brother. Yes, it is rare even among all consecrated people…grace indeed it is…