[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.

[thefrankbaum]

Sorry for my delays in response - the real world does take priority ;-)

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?

I agree the Encyclo. can be helpful to explain ideas and precepts, but it is not authoritiative. It is not any form of codification, any more than a commentary on the law by a learned Judge is. Now, it may be persuasive and correct, but it is not the final authority - it merely explains the final authority, in the given case, Canon Law, as I quoted from in post #112. In that post, I tried to move away from reliance on the Encyclo. and onto the actual laws of the Church.

From the Code:

Can. 654 By religious profession members make a public vow to observe the three evangelical counsels. Through the ministry of the Church they are consecrated to God, and are incorporated into the institute, with the rights and duties defined by law.

It is consecration that makes a member of the laity a religious - a nun. From your quote of the Encyclo:

Writers are not all agreed on the question whether the religious of other orders can properly be called regulars before solemn profession.

This quote seems to demonstrate there is some legitimate disagreement on whether or not they are regulars - the Canon Law indicates novices are not, as they are not bound by vows and are not concecrated. Further, the following quote you've chosen from the Encyclo. Novices: II. Juridical Condition is this line:

If he is a novice in a religious order, he becomes a regular in the widest sense of the word; as such he is not bound by any vow, but he is protected by the ecclesiastical immunities, and shares in the indulgences and privileges of his order, gaining a plenary indulgence on the day of his admission, at least into an order properly so called

Even the Encyclo. recognizes that novices are not bound by vows - the requirement to become a REAL nun. The "widest sense of the word" means that a novice is "in" with an order, and allowed to share their benefits (i.e., a Jesuit novice is a member of the Society of Jesus, but is not a Jesuit Brother).

Again, novices may look like a duck and quack like a duck, but until they vow themselves to Concecrated Life, they are not properly members of any order. Like, I've said multiple times, improper use of a term, no matter how common, does not make it correct (i.e., my Italian example).

Hopefully this clears up some things - a minor point to be sure, but precision in language in explaining theological ideas is paramount, and this is good practice for the bigger issues.