[thefrankbaum]

I am in no way trying to divert attention here. I am just stating that, legally in the Church she cannot be considered a nun. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Encylopedias are helpful in explaining ideas, but the Catholic Encylopedia is not the law of the Catholic Church.

I don't understand this "widest possible view" argument either - like I said, under the widest possible use of the term Italian, I could be considered one. That does not mean I am a citizen of Italy - the legal definition of "Italian." Just because people use words (nun, Italian, etc.) carelessly does not make their use of them correct.

As regards to the laws of man/God disagreement, you are right. I rushed to conclusions about your point - I read your words in the context of the thread, and with all the "traditions of men" sneers thrown about on this forum I may have misinterpreted your words. I apologize for that. My only point was to refute a point (which I agree you did not directly assert) that I read as "the Church is full of loopholes, etc. because it is a construction of men - God's Law is simple and clear." Now, whether or not you do agree with that point I have no idea - it was my own interpretation of your words, and I obviously was mistaken. Sorry.

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for the kind and thoughtful reply.

Yes, God's laws are simply and clear. And again, the Encyclo. isn't "law" per se, but helpful as guidelines(?) in defining, explaining, or illuminating ideas or precepts? We might find some rough agreement on this?

Yet too, isn't the Encyclo. looked upon or used as a sort of codification? To help define things, who, what, how, even the "why", in such ways that conform to the traditions?

You say that;

legally in the Church she cannot be considered [formerly to have been]a nun.

To which laws or set of codification are you referring to?

By the definitions and descriptions outlined in the Catholic Encyclopedia, there are indeed what appear to be *exclusionary* facets to the more commonly applied, but also more narrow definitions, of when and how one should be considered a nun, or monk too, for that matter.

We see here;
Under Novice;II. JURIDICAL CONDITION

can be found;

"By the fact of his entrance into an approved congregation, the novice becomes an ecclesiastical person. If he is a novice in a religious order, he becomes a regular in the widest sense of the word..."

from this page; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12722c.htm entitled

Regulars

we find at the beginning or near top of the page, this opening line which I admittedly left out of my initial post outlining the plausibility of her claim [to have been formerly considered, to have been a nun];

"The observance of the Rule of St. Benedict procured for the monks at an early period the name of "regulars".

bearing in mind that "monks" and nuns most generally or widely are regulated similarly.
With the widest usages speaking of classification of monks, applying broadly also to the female version, which are nuns.
Particular exceptions, and the more precise definitions in other reference materials, said to apply to particular named religious orders and under other more precise conditions, not withstanding.
We find near at the bottom of the that defining reference page;

"Writers are not all agreed on the question whether the religious of other orders can properly be called regulars before solemn profession. The novices of religious orders are regulars only in the wider meaning of the word."

Novices
become by way of the grace of
"the widest sense of the word"
regulars which is also a term used at times for
monks=nuns

In light of the above, it appears there may well enough be room to properly identify her, during the time in which she was more narrowly defined as a novice, to be considered also, concurrently, under the widest sense, to be a nun.

As she (Mary Ann?) set forth in attempt of explanation in her "Note" found at the linked source page;

NOTE

1. "Novice" in the 1913 edition of "The Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XI. This article is available on-line. The term "novice" refers to both monks and nuns who go through a period of training and preparation. In Section II, "Juridical Condition, "the article states that a novice in a religious order is a "regular" in the widest sense of the word. (A "regular" is a technical term for a monk or a nun.)

I can see the logic train she seems to have followed, or used as explanation...I hope the color coding I've added helps more than detracts.

I know that for myself, when I see a gaggle of sisters in cloistered locale, to my untrained eye, all wearing a habit would look like "nuns", to me. Not that my own puny sight identifications would really matter all that much, but still it would loosely conform to this 'widest sense' mentioned.

Regardless, disputes over classification, where and how they may apply, are of course best and more properly & orderly, decided by a presiding Bishop.

For the sake of discussion here, I offered what I have, in an effort to look in towards the possibility, of this Mary Ann, not being a "liar", as a few here have so vehemently proclaimed.

It does seem plain enough to me, that this rush to hurl the accusation "liar", has been a bit hasty, to say the least.