It has recently been proposed that all of these views mistake the real intention of St. Benedict by supposing that he wished to lay down a procedure for choosing an abbot or that he assumed that such a regular procedure was followed. Herbert Grundmann has suggested that the author had no such intention and was concerned solely with the spiritual problem involved, not at all with canonical procedure. St. Benedict was convinced that the supremely important factor in an abbatial election is the will of God, and he wants the community to be open to discerning the divine intention. Consequently, they are to act “in the fear of God,” consider solely the virtue and wisdom of the candidate, and be prepared to accept even the youngest if God’s choice should fall upon him (RB 64.1-2). God’s will may be manifested in different ways: through the whole community’, through a sanior pars, or even through an individual. One cannot determine in advance how God will manifest his will; therefore, rather than intending to specify an election procedure, St. Benedict feels that this ought not be too clearly defined, for fear that the freedom of the Spirit may be constrained by human regulations. According to Grundmann, the RB represents a purely charismatic point of view and is not at all concerned with juridical procedure.80 He notes that in a parallel case, the choice of the Holy Roman emperor, no clear law of succession was ever formulated, precisely in order to give free play to the divine will.
It is also uncertain whether St. Benedict intended a liturgical rite of abbatial blessing and installation by the bishop. He does not mention such a rite. Is it legitimate to interpret this silence to mean that he takes such a ceremony for granted because it was already customary?81 There is no mention of the abbatial blessing in liturgical books until the Gregorian Sacramentary, which contains chiefly seventh- and eighth-century material, but this does not prove that the rite could not have been in use earlier. In fact, a rite of this kind is described in RM 93 and 94: the bishop is the officiant, and it includes the celebration of Mass as well as an installation ceremony. One cannot conclude, however, that the rites known to the RM must have also been practiced in St. Benedict’s monastery except in cases where there is evidence to the contrary.82 Liturgical practice may have differed considerably from one monastery to another at this period. Later the rite of abbatial blessing underwent a vast development owing to the important social position occupied by abbots in the Middle Ages. This development injected confusion into the understanding of the abbot’s role by patterning the blessing upon the consecration of a bishop and thus making it appear that the abbot was part of the sacramental hierarchy. The recent revision of the rite according to the principles of Vatican II has restored its simplicity and original meaning.83
Given the diversity of practice at the time and the laconic character of Benedict’s statements on the subject, it may well be impossible for us ever to determine with certitude what he intended in regard to the manner of determining abbatial succession. The debate about it, however, is not just an idle dispute among scholars, but is important for understanding the role of the abbot: the manner in which he is selected and installed tells us something about the nature of his office.
There can be no question that for Benedict the abbot is the successor of the spiritual father of the desert. He is the “holy man,” the “Man of God,” the charismatic elder, the teacher who from his experience is able to provide a “word” for the upbuilding of others. It is true that Benedict has been influenced also, in a fruitful and enriching way, by the Basilian and Augustinian traditions, for which the community rather than the abbot is the starting point. They have had but little effect, however, on his vision of the abbot, which remains predominantly in the tradition of Egypt that came to the West through Cassian. Everyone admits that for St. Benedict the abbot is primarily the spiritual father.84
Is the abbot, then, a purely charismatic figure? Indeed, if his principal function remains the spiritual formation of each of his monks, nevertheless the situation has undergone modification from the status of the charismatic in the desert. The spontaneous appearance of a “Man of God” cannot be duplicated by putting someone into office, no matter how carefully he is chosen. The Spirit, while its operation is compatible with the institution, cannot be institutionalized. An abbot chosen to govern a community is in a different position from that of the original founder: the latter had attracted disciples by his personal qualities; the former assumes the direction of an already existing community. He may find it impossible to develop the same kind of personal relationship with each individual that the founder had. Further, he assumes an obligation to teach and direct his community, whereas the desert father taught only when asked for advice, and even then it was often with great reluctance. The institutionalized task also assumes dimensions such as sheer size and administrative burden that alter the functioning of the abbot in practice. While he must be concerned about each individual, his teaching is often directed more at the community as a whole.85 The abbot of the RB is the lineal descendant of the charismatic abba and still reproduces the essentials of his role, but he is not exactly the same thing.
Did the Rule regard the abbot as belonging to the purely charismatic element in the Church? In fact, while monasticism had begun as a charismatic phenomenon outside the hierarchical structure of Church authority, it had been brought into it in varying degrees at different times and places.86 It was not until the Middle Ages that it became thoroughly institutionalized, though then and often since it has periodically been revivified by new stirrings of the Spirit. In the sixth century the situation was still fluid: the bishops exercised some control over monasteries, as the letters of Gregory the Great testify, but there was no clear-cut and universal canonical pattern. Abbots were most often still laymen, and the monastic hierarchy was clearly distinct from the ecclesiastical, though the two interacted in varying degrees.
The fact that there was no fixed pattern is precisely the nub of the difficulty in determining what Benedict intended the bishop’s role to be. The RM allows him no voice in selecting the abbot; this decision is made by an abbot. Did Benedict believe likewise that the will of God was to be mediated solely through monastic channels and exclude the bishop from the normal selection process (Steidle), or did he leave the ultimate decision up to episcopal authority and allow the monks only to propose a candidate (Brechter)? It is difficult to decide.
If the bishop not only installed the abbot but actually appointed him, then it would seem that the abbot’s authority was conferred upon him by the Church through the hierarchy. Such was not the idea of early monasticism, which believed that the foundation of an abbot’s authority was a charism given to him directly by the Holy Spirit and quite distinct from the jurisdiction of the hierarchical Church.87 It is not easy to determine what the Western monastic legislators thought about this point. The question arises even if the bishop had no role in the selection of the abbot, as in the RM, for he still presided at the installation (RM 93-94; RB 65.3). The Master does not pronounce clearly on this point; what he says can be understood to attribute the abbatial authority to the liturgical rite conducted by the bishop, but it may also mean that he derived it from a charismatic gift received directly from God.88 Since Benedict says nothing of the installation rite beyond the allusion in 65.3, we have no clear way of determining his view of the matter.
In either hypothesis, however, the authority of the abbot is deemed to come, in the final analysis, from God, either directly by virtue of a charism or indirectly through the jurisdictional power of the hierarchy. It does not originate from the community. The abbot is father of his monks because God has chosen him and placed him in office (through whatever intermediaries), and the monks owe him obedience because they believe this: “Since he is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, he is addressed by a title of Christ, as the Apostle indicates: ‘You have received the spirit of adoption of sons by which we exclaim, abba, father’” (RB 2.2-3). In ancient times, when different methods of selection were in use, there was less danger of confusing
the election of an abbot with the modern political practice of electing officials by majority vote. The latter derive their authority from the will of the electorate; the abbot does not. Whatever political process may be employed in his selection is of only secondary importance; St. Benedict may even have been relatively indifferent to it. He is more concerned that the right person be chosen, and that God’s will be done. “They must . . . set a worthy steward in charge of God’s house” (RB 64.5).
____________________
1 In addition to the commentaries on the Rule, see H. Emonds “Abt” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1.45–55; J. Gribomont “Abbas” Dizionario degli Istituti de Perfezione 1.23–26; Pierre Salmon, The Abbot in Monastic Tradition, tr. C. Lavoie, (Washington, D.C.: Consortium Press 1972).
2 Abbas appears 126 times; prior 12 times; maior, pater monasterii, and pater spiritalis once each.
3 An attempt has been made to derive it from the Greek papas, a title applied to bishops in the early Church and eventually restricted to the bishop of Rome. No adequate explanation has been offered, however, for the dropping of the initial p. See E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum, TU 3rd series 8,4 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs 1912) p. 227.
4 E.g., Evagr. de orat. 108, in regard to Theodore of Tabennesi.
5 He argues thus in Hier. in Gal. 4-6, but offers a justification for it in the later Hier. in Matt. 23:9. He uses the term himself in Hier. vita Mal. 3 and 10, and in Hier. epist. 51,2.
6 E.g., A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, CSCO 184 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO 1958); see introduction p. liv. It is noteworthy that the Apophthegmata uses the corresponding Aramaic term amma, ‘mother,’ for female ascetics. Some also believe that the term monachos is derived from Syriac usage. See Appendix 1, pp. 306–307.
7 Neither Chrysostom nor Theodoret uses the term abba of a renowned monk or of a cenobitic superior. It becomes common only in the sixth and seventh centuries, in writers such as Dorotheos of Gaza, Cyril of Scythopolis and John of Damascus. In the East the accent has always been upon the personal holiness of the monk rather than upon his office, even when it is applied to a cenobitic superior. See I. Hausherr, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 144 (Rome: Pont. Inst. Orientalium Studiorum 1955) pp. 35–39.
8 On spiritual fatherhood, see especially L. Dürr “Heilige Vaterschaft im Antiken Orient” in Heilige Überlieferung: Festgabe I. Herwegen (Münster: Aschendorff 1938) pp. 1–20; P. Gutierrez, La paternité spirituelle selon S. Paul, Études bibliques (Paris: Gabalda 1968); La paternité spirituelle: Séminaire pour maîtresses de novices cisterciennes (Laval: Abbaye Cistercienne 1974; hors commerce).
9 See the texts translated in J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press 1955), especially the instructions of Ptah-hotep and Merikare.
10 E.g., Prov 23:19-26; 24:13,21; Prov 1–9 passim; Sir 2:1; 3:12,17; 4:1; 6:18,24,32 and passim. The plural is used in Prov 4:1; 5:7; 7:24; Ps 33(34):11; Sir 3:1; 23:7.
11 In Israel there is no mention of schools until a late period (see Sir 51:23), but prophets and sages had disciples whom they instructed.
12 This is the background behind the saying of John 5:19-20.
13 See Gal 3:26-27; Col 2:12; Eph 5:26. St. John also associates the acceptance of the word through faith with baptismal regeneration: John 1:12-13; 3:12; 1 John 2:24-25; 5:1,10-12.
14 Jas 1:17-18; 1 Pet 1:23; 1 John 3:9, and the explanation of the sower parable: Mark 4:14-20 and parallels.
15 Deutero-Isaiah especially stresses the power of God’s Word (see Isa 55:11). For him and his followers, all creation came about simply by the Word of God (thus Pss 32[33]:9; 147:15,18). Deuteronomy speaks of the Word within man’s heart (Deut 30:14). The personification of the Word, which begins already in Deutero-Isaiah, becomes clear in late Old Testament passages such as Wis 18:15 and, outside the Bible, in the concept of the memra, which occurs in the Aramaic targums as a means of avoiding anthropomorphisms.
16 In later Patristic literature the fatherhood of the bishop is a common theme. See, for example, Aug. in psalm. 44,32.
17 Origen frequently makes use of the analogies of the preacher as father and the word as seed. See Orig. hom. in Ex. 1-3; in Ioan. 32,10.
18 See C. H. Peisker and C. Brown “Prophet” The new International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1978) 3.74–92.
19 Thus K. Heussi, Der Ursprung des Mönchtums (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1936) pp. 165–167.
20 See ibid., pp. 164–186; G. Colombás, El monacato primitivo, BAC 351,376 (Madrid: La Editorial Católica 1974–75) 2.97–104; Hausherr, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois.
21 F. von Lilienfeld “Anthropos Pneumatikos-Pater Pneumatophoros: Neues Testament und Apophthegmata Patrum” Studia Patristica 5, TU 80 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1962) 382–392.
22 See G. Bardy “Discernement des esprits chez les Pères” DS 3.1247–54.
23 See A. and C. Guillaumont “Démon dans la plus ancienne littérature monastique” DS 3.180–212.
24 The classic treatise on discretion is Cassian. conl. 2.
25 P. Sorokin “The Monastic System of Techniques. Monastic ‘Psychoanalysis,’ Counseling and Therapy,” excerpted from The Ways and Power of Love (St. Meinrad, Ind.: Abbey Press 1973); T. Merton “The Spiritual Father in the Desert Tradition” Contemplation in a World of Action (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday 1971) pp. 269–293 “Final Integration: Toward a Monsastic Therapy” ibid., pp. 205–217.
26 The classic story about a pseudo-elder who was shocked and judgmental at the temptations of a young monk is recounted by Cassian. conl. 2,13.
27 M. Matthei “Afflicción y consuelo en los Padres del Desierto” SM 5 (1963) 7–25.
28 While Cassian is rather restrained in his attitude toward miracles (see his remarks in the Preface to the inst. and in conl. 18,1), Palladius and Sulpicius Severus delight in recounting them. The Apophthegmata, on the whole, is quite reserved.
29 See B. Steidle “‘Homo Dei Antonius’: Zum Bild des ‘Mannes Gottes’ im alten Mönchtum” Antonius Magnus Eremita 356–1956, StA 38 (Rome: Herder 1956) pp. 148–200.
30 A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien au quatrième siècle, StA 57 (Rome: Herder 1968); “The Abbatial Office in Cenobitic Life” MS 6 (1968) 3–45; “Le rôle de la sous-culture monastique dans la formation du moine” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 100 (1978) 734–749. His views are shared in part by F. Ruppert, Das pachomianische Mönchtum und die Anfänge klösterlichen Gehorsams (Münster-schwarzach: Vier-Türme Verlag 1971).
31 See A. de Vogüé “À propos de la théologie de l’abbatiat et de ses implications liturgiques” Vie Spirituelle Supplément 87 (1968) 612–614; “Les pièces latines du dossier pachômien: Remarques sur quelques publications récents” RHE 67 (1972) 26–67; “Saint Pachôme et son oeuvre d’après plusieurs études récents” ibid. 69 (1974) 425–453. The issues involved in the question are lucidly explained and discussed by P. Deseille “Eastern Christian Sources of the Rule of St. Benedict” MS 11 (1975) 73–122.
32 On the Pachomian koinōnia, see Veilleux, La liturgie, pp. 167–197; H. Bacht “Antonius und Pachomius: Von der Anachorese zum Cönobitentum” Antonius Magnus Eremita, pp. 66–107 (see note 29 above).
33 That the veneration of a founder of a religious order by his followers began already with Pachomius has been demonstrated by J.-F. Gilmont “Paternité et médiation du fondateur d’Ordre” RAM 40 (1964) 393–426.
34 On the spiritual fatherhood of Pachomius, see H. Bacht, Das Vermächtnis des Ursprungs (Würzburg: Echter Verlag 1972) pp. 213–224; Ruppert, Das pachomianische Mönchtum, pp. 159–166; P. Deseille, L’esprit du monachisme pachômien, Spiritualité Orientale 2 (Nantes: Abbaye de Bèllefontaine 1968) pp. vii–xix.
35 The fullest account is in Vita sa3: Lefort 60–61. See Ruppert, Das pachomianische Mönchtum, pp. 30–31, “Die Berufung zum Kloster
gründer.”
36 If Pachomius only infrequently referred to himself as father, it was because he recognized that he was only a mediator; the real father is God. Thus he said to Theodore upon the latter’s arrival at the monastery, “Don’t cry, my son, for I am a servant of your Father” (Vita bo 30). On another occasion he said, “I have never considered myself to be the father of the brothers, for only God is their father” (Vita prima 108).
37 See Vita prima 56-57,96-97,102 (Pachomius); 118,126 (Horsiesius); 131,135,140-142 (Theodore).
38 See J. Gribomont “Saint Basile” Théologie de la vie monastique, Théologie 49 (Paris: Aubier 1961) pp. 99–113 and the literature therein cited.
39 De Vogüé, La communauté, pp. 78–186, has analyzed chapter 2 exhaustively. Earlier studies are those of F. Masai “La Règle de S. Benoît et la ‘Regula Magistri’” Latomus 6 (1947) 207–229; J. McCann “The Rule of the Master” DR 57 (1939) 3–22. See also B. Steidle “Abbas/Tyrannus: Zur Abtsidee der Regel St. Benedikts” BM 24 (1948) 335–348, and, more recently, “Memor periculi Heli sacerdotis de Silo. Zum Abtsbild der Regel St. Benedikts (Kap. 2,26)” EA 52 (1976) 5–18.
40 More precisely, five sections: the last concerns the question of consulting the community, which forms chapter 3 in the RB. In this section, however, there is little correspondence between the text of the RB and that of the RM.
41 See the commentaries of A. Lentini, O. Cunill and I. Herwegen.
42 De Vogüé, La communauté, pp. 78–100. See also Appendix 7. pp. 488–493, for comparative texts.
43 This was in fact a variant reading, attested to by Hier, in Zach. 1. A similar inversion is found in variant texts of Eph 2:20: the variant indicates a tendency of scribes to understand these “prophets” as Old Testament personages rather than New Testament figures. See A. de Vogüé, La Règle du Maître, SC 105,106,107 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf 1964–65) 1.348, n.82; 2.50, n.14.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 54