44 The portrait of the shepherd in 27.8-9 is clearly meant to be Christological: he is called “the Good Shepherd” and his shoulders are “sacred.” It borrows elements from Matt 18:12-13 (the mountains, the strayed sheep, the searching), from Luke 15:4-7 (the carrying on the shoulders), and from John 10:1-16 (the Good Shepherd). The Fathers frequently gave a Christological interpretation of the sheep parable: Orig. hom. in Iesu Nave 7,6; Meth. conviv. 3,6; Greg.Nys. adv.Apoll. 16, cont.Eun. 4,12, in Eccl. 2; Hier. in Matt. 18,12; Ambr. in Luc. 15,4; Iren. demonstr.apost.praedic. 33, adv.haer. 3,19,3; 3,23,8; Tert. pud. 7,1.
45 Sec C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism: Studies in Benedictine Life and Rule (London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1919); J. Chapman, St. Benedict and the Sixth Century (1929; rpt. Westwood, Conn.: Greenwood Press, Inc. 1972); I. Herwegen, Sinn und Geist der Benediktinerregel (Einsiedeln: Benziger 1944).
46 This question was first explored by H. S. Mayer, Benediktinisches Ordensrecht in der Beuroner Congregation (Beuron: Archabbey 1932) 2/1.88–97; it was then taken up by B. Steidle “Heilige Vaterschaft” BM 14 (1932) 215–226; “Abba Vater” ibid. 16 (1934) 89–101; The Rule of St. Benedict (Canon City: Holy Cross Abbey 1967) pp. 82–89. See also O. Casel “Bemerkungen zu einem Text der Regula sancti Benedieti” SMGBO 61 (1947) 5–11.
47 Among modern commentators, only A. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark 1992) p. 68 seems to consider seriously that birth from Christ was intended. See the excellent treatment of R. Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, Herders Theologisch. Komm. zum NT 13,3 (Herder: Freiburg 1953) pp. 146–147 and the excursus “Gotteskindschaft und Zeugung aus Gott,” pp. 155–162.
48 Thus, Ambr. fid. ad Grat. 4,154; Aug. tract. in Ioan. 4,3; Baedae in 1 Ioan. 2,29. The latter follows Augustine almost verbatim.
49 See Orig. hom. in Num. 27,2: GCS 30, “The Father of the world to come, who says of himself, ‘I am the door. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
50 Thus the early apologist Aristides affirms that the Christians trace the origin of their race to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Jews trace theirs to Abraham: Arist apol. 15.1: 14,1. Likewise, Justin Martyr Says that Christ has begotten us as Jacob begot Israel: Iust. dial. 123,9; 138,2.
51 G. Racle “À propos du Christ-Père dans l’Homélie Paschale de Méliton de Sardes” RechSR 50 (1962) 400–408 shows that this is not an expression of modalistic theology, as some have thought, but concerns the saving activity of Christ.
52 K. Baus “Das Gebet der Martyrer” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 62 (1953) 19–32.
53 K. Baus “Das Gebet beim hl. Hieronymus” ibid. 60 (1951) 178–188.
54 The importance of this text was first pointed out by M. Rothenhäusler “Der Vatername Christi” SMGBO 52 (1934) 178–179. See also Hil. vita Hon. 4; Porcar. mon.; Arnob. ad Greg. 19.
55 Texts of Ephraim are cited by B. Steidle “Abba Vater” BM 16 (1934) 89–101, especially 100. See also Philox. ad Pat. 99; Lib.grad. 29,19.
56 On Benedict’s concept of Christ, see A. Kemmer “Christ in the Rule of St. Benedict” MS 3 (1965) 87–98; A. de Vogüé “The Fatherhood of Christ” ibid. 5 (1968) 45–57; A. Borias “‘Dominus’ et ‘Deus’ dans la Règle de saint Benoît” RBén 79 (1969) 414–423; “Christ and the Monk” MS 10 (1974) 97–129.
57 B. Fischer “Die Psalmenfrömmigkeit der Regula s. Benedicti” Liturgie und Mönchtum 4 (1949) 22–35; 5 (1950) 64–79. Fischer somewhat overstates his case, as has become clear from later studies (see the articles cited in the preceding note): St. Benedict does not conceive the entire liturgical prayer of the monastery as directed to Christ, and it is unlikely that “opus Dei” means ‘the work of Christ.’ His approach is more nuanced. On the question of praying the psalms to Christ, see B. Fischer “Le Christ dans les psaumes: La dévotion aux psaumes dans l’Église des Martyrs” La Maison-Dieu 27 (1951) 86–113. The oldest understanding of the psalms as prayer to Christ is in Clem. ad Cor. 22,1-8, in which the “Come, children, listen to me” of Ps 33(34) is placed in the mouth of Christ. It is used similarly in RB Prol.12-17, following RM Ths. 8-13. See also F. Vandenbroucke, Les Psaumes, le Christ et Nous (Louvain: Mont-César 19652).
58 Thus de Vogüé “The Fatherhood of Christ,” p. 48.
59 The earliest instance of directing the Lord’s Prayer to Christ appears to be Acta Thomae 144. For the appearance of this phenomenon in liturgical texts, see J. Jungmann, The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer (Staten Island: Alba House 1965) pp. 49, n. 1; 98, n. 5; 168, n. 7; 220, n. 3.
60 The RB does not have the commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, but refers to the prayer in 7.20 and 13.13-14. In the former place it alters the RM’s “Lord” to “God.” This may indicate an intention to direct the prayer to the Father rather than to Christ. Elsewhere, however, the same change is made without a clearly discernible reason, as in RB 7.29; 7.67; see also 2.6.
61 Doctor only in 5.6; magister in 2.24; 3.6; 5.9; 6.6. Some hold that the magister of Prol.l also refers to the abbot.
62 In regard to the abbot’s role as teacher, the RB is much more reserved than the RM, which makes every chapter of the rule a kind of oracular pronouncement coming from Christ through the abbot: “Respondit Dominus per magistrum.” See A. Borias “Le Christ” pp. 114–116 (note 56 above).
63 See B. Steidle “Dominici schola servitii. Zum Verständnis des Prologes der Regula St. Benedikts” BM 28 (1952) 397–406. A different view is presented by C. Mohrmann “La langue de saint Benoît” in P. Schmitz, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachorum (Maredsous: Editions de l’Abbaye 19552) pp. 31–33. E. Manning denies that St. Benedict thought of the monastery as a schola, since he considers Prol.40-50, where the term occurs, as inauthentic. See “L’étude de la Regula Sancti Benedicti dans la perspective du centenaire de 1980” CollCist 41 (1979) 141–154. This opinion is refuted, however, by A. de Vogüé “La Règle d’Eugippe et la fin du Prologue de S. Benoît” CollCist 41 (1979) 263–273. See also G. Penco “Sul concetto del monastèro come ‘schola’” ibid. 32 (1970) 329–333. See the note to Prol.45.
64 The term can still designate both the place and the group of people, and can also refer to a wider reality than an instructional institution, but this broader connotation is less usual in common parlance.
65 Monastic use of the term schola had been long established. Cassian uses it in conl. 3,1; 18,16; 19,2. Other examples are given by Steidle (see note 63).
66 In the ancient world and especially in Semitic culture, skills were usually handed down from father to son; hence apprenticeship to a master was conceived of as a father-son relationship. The monastic tradition reflects this not only in its use of the father-analogy but also in its stress on imitation as the primary means of learning. See C. H. Dodd “A Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel” More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Eerdmans 1968) pp. 30–40.
67 In biblical thought there is a close relationship between word and action: Hebrew uses the term “word” (dabar) to mean ‘thing’ or ‘deed.’ The mirabilia Dei are revelatory insofar as they are “words” that convey meaning. The deed and the word together (such as prophetic actions accompanied by explanation) constitute a whole, a single revelatory phenomenon.
68 See Hos 11:3-5; Isa 66:13; Matt 23:37; 1 Cor 3:1-2; Origen wrote, “Christ can be called father and mother” (Orig. in Prov. 20).
69 “He will show all his disciples and sons the realization of both parents in his own person: showing his love equally to then as a mother, he shows himself a father to them by uniform tenderness” (RM 2.30-31).
70 The variation of metaphoris facilitated by the fact that the Greek verb gennaō can mean both ‘beget’ and ‘give birth.’
71 The Apophthegmata lists the sayings of a number of female elders. Women not only functioned as mothers of female communities, but in the Middle Ages sometimes ruled double monasteries, exercising jurisdiction also over male subjects. Especially significant was Robert of Arbrissel’s institute of Fontevrault (1099), in which
the abbess held supreme authority over the monks as well as the nuns.
72 In an abbatial election, if a majority is not achieved after a certain number of ballots, usually six, the office is filled by appointment. Appointment by the Holy See after consultation as a regular method of choosing bishops is found only in the Latin Church; in the Eastern Churches electoral procedures are still in use. The Bishop of Rome is also elected, and the papal law still provides for the possibility of his being chosen by acclamation.
73 The case of St. Ambrose is well known. As civil governor, he went to the church to maintain order. When a child cried out, “Ambrose bishop,” the whole assembly took up the cry, even though he was only a catechumen. The divine will became known through this spontaneous outburst, so that the agreement upon Ambrose transcended the Arian-Catholic division of the Milanese Christian community. The story is told by Paulin. vita Ambr. 3.
74 A survey of opinions on this question is provided by J. Lienhard “Sanius Consilium: Recent Work on the Election of the Abbot in the Rule of St. Benedict” ABR 26 (1975) 1–15.
75 The clearest exposition of this view is that of H. Brechter “Die Bestellung Abtes nach der Regel des heiligen Benedikt” SMGBO 58 (1940) 44–58.
76 B. Seidle “‘Wer euch hört, hört mich’ (Lk 10,16): Die Einsetzung des Abts im altern Mönchtum” EA 40 (1964) 179–196.
77 K. Hallinger “Das Wahlrecht der Benediktusregula” ZKG 76 (1965) 233–245.
78 Novellae 123,34: R. Schoell and W. Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis (Berlin: Weidmann 19596) 3.618. The Latin text reads: “Abbatem . . . omens monachi [aut?] melioris opinionis existents elegant.”
79 Evidence that the deans constituted the electoral body is cited by Hallinger in the cases of Murbach and Fulda, but only from the eighth and ninth centuries. His thesis is rejected by H. Grundmann “Zur Abt-Wahl nach Benedikts Regel: Die ‘Zweitobern’ als ‘sanior pars’?” ZKG 77 (1966) 217–223. In the Middle Ages the community often entrusted the choice of the abbot to a group of electors; an interesting twelfth-century example from Bury St. Edmund can be found in The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, ed. H. E. Butler (London: Nelson 1949) pp. 16–24. See also A. Gasquet, English Monastic Life (London: Methuen 1904) pp. 44–48; H. Leclercq “Élections abbatiales” DACL 4.2611–18. The use of a small electoral body (electio per compromissum) has survived in the provisions of the U.S. Constitution for the election of the President; in fact, modern political electoral methods developed out of ecclesiastical practice. See L. Moulin “Les origines religieuses des techniques électorales et délibératives modernes” Revue internationale d’histoire politique et constitutionelle n.s. 3 (1953) 106–148; “Sanior et maior pars. Note sur l’évolution des techniques électorales dans les Ordres religieux du VIe au XIIe siècle” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 4e série 36 (1958) 368–397, 491–529. On past and present methods of electing abbots, see B. Hegglin, Der benediktinische Abt in rechtsgeschichtlicher Entwicklung und geltendem Kirchenrecht (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag 1961) pp. 45–51, 130–135.
80 H. Grundmann “Pars Quamvis Parva: Zur Abtwahl nach Benedikts Regel” Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag 1964) 1.237–251.
81 This view is defended by Chapman, St. Benedict and the Sixth Century and by R. Somerville “‘Ordinatio Abbatis’ in the Rule of St. Benedict” RBén 77 (1967) 246–263. Gregory the Great speaks of the ordinatio of an abbot by a bishop that involves the celebration of Mass (Registrum epistolarum 11,48: PL 77.1168). Directives for a similar rite are found in the seventh century in the Penitential of Theodore of Canterbury: PL 99.928–929.
82 A. Mundó “A propos des rituels du Maître et de saint Benoît: La ‘Provolutio’” SM 4 (1962) 177–191.
83 On the abbatial blessing, see S. Hilpisch “Entwicklung des Ritus der Abtsweihe in der lateinischen Kirche” SMGBO 61 (1947) 53–60; J. Baudot “Bénédiction d’un abbé et d’une abbesse” DACL 2.723–727; D.C. “Ordo Benedictionis Abbatis et Abbatissae: Decretum, Praenotanda, Commentarium” Notitiae 7 (1971) 32–36; A. Nocent “Benedizione dell’ abate” Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 1.8–14.
84 A. Veilleux “The Abbatial Office in Cenobitical Life” MS 6 (1968) 3–45 concedes that this is true of the RB, even though he considers it a deviation. In the East (Syria, Basil, Pachomius), he maintains, the cenobitic superior was originally a primus inter pares, the center or “eye” of the community, whose relationship to the monks was horizontal rather than vertical. It was Cassian who, having no acquaintance with real cenobitism, transplanted the desert abba into the coenobium for purposes of his own, viz., to reform the monasteries of Provence along the lines of his Egyptian eremitical ideals. The Master, with his usual excess of logic, carried the idea to extremes by putting the abbot on the same plane as the bishop—a most unfortunate step whose disastrous effects last right down to the present. St. Benedict innocently inherited the idea of the abbot as spiritual father from Cassian and the RM, but he had the good sense to steer clear of the latter’s excessive conclusions. Moreover, his knowledge of Basil enabled him to introduce a corrective that went far toward neutralizing the nefarious influence of Cassian. It follows that the RB presents a moderate view of spiritual fatherhood and should be understood as repudiating material in the RM that it does not explicitly reproduce, specifically the abbot-bishop comparison.
85 R. Weakland “The Abbot in a Democratic Society” CS 4 (1969) 95–100; “Obedience to the Abbot and the Community in the Monastery” ibid. 5 (1970) 309–316; “The Abbot as Spiritual Father” ibid. 9 (1974) 231–238; “Amtsautorität und Seelenführung” EA 51 (1976) 85–91; G. Dubois “Authority and Obedience in Contemporary Monasticism” CS 8 (1973) 101–108.
86 The seventh canon of the Council of Chalcedon had already declared, “Placuit. . . monachos vero per unamquamque civitatem aut regionem subiectos esse episcopo” (Mansi 7.374).
87 J. Bonduelle “Le pouvoir dominatif des abbés” La Vie Spirituelle Supplément 69 (1964) 201–223.
88 P. Tamburrino “La Régula Magistri e l’origine del potere abbaziale” CollCist 28 (1966) 160–173; B. Jaspert “‘Stellvertreter Christi’ bei Aponius, einem unbekanntem ‘Magister’ und Benedikt von Nursia: Ein Beitrag zum altkirchlichen Amtsverständnis” ZThK 71 (1974) 291–324. De Vogüé has changed his mind on this question and now holds that according to the RM the abbot derives his power from the liturgical installation by the bishop: “L’origine du pouvoir des abbés selon la Règle du Maître” La Vie Spirituelle Supplément 70 (1964) 321–324.
Appendix 3
The Liturgical Code in the Rule of Benedict
From earliest times Christians have been conscious of the privilege and the responsibility of prayer. Paul exhorted the community at Thessalonica to “pray constantly” and to “give thanks in all circumstances” (1 Thess 5:17-18). In the theology of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus himself is portrayed as a man of prayer and as a teacher of prayer: “In these days he went out to the mountain to pray; and all night he continued in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12). It is not surprising, then, that in early Christian sources outside the New Testament we find an emphatic interest in prayer, personal and public. A survey of these sources will reveal four principal lines in the development of what we today call the Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office—an officially established pattern of common prayer (psalms, hymns, Bible readings, petitions) that punctuates the various hours of the day and night. With Juan Mateos, we may identify these four lines of development in the Liturgy of the Hours as follows:1
1. times for prayer in the primitive Church;
2. the development of a “monastic tradition” of prayer-times in fourth-century Egypt;
3. the “cathedral tradition,” i.e., public prayer as celebrated in parochial or cathedral churches;
4. the rise of an “urban monastic tradition” of prayer-times.
Each of these four stages merits some attention.
Times for prayer in the primitive Church
From the beginnings of Christianity until the early fourth century, there is scant testimony for large-scale, formal celebrations of the Liturgy of the Hours. This does not mean, however, that the hours of prayer did not exist in the earliest era of Christian life. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence for the Christian custom of praying, privately and/or in common, at definite times of the day and night. For example, the Didache, a small manual of Christian catechesis and liturgical customs dating from the late first or early second century, instructs Christians to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day (Didache 8,3). About a century later, Clement of Alexandria, a prominent Christian theologian and apologist († c. 215), mentions the custom of praying at the third, sixth and ninth hours of the day, as well as at morning, evening and night (Clem. strom. 7,7).
Some of the early Church Fathers attempted symbolic explanations of why Christians pray at certain hours. One such explanation can be found in the treatise on prayer by Tertullian († c. 225), a passionate representative of Latin Christianity in North Africa. For Tertullian, as for most of the early Fathers, the supreme law of Christian prayer is the continual prayer of the heart. The Christian is one who should pray “at all times and everywhere” (Tert. de orat. 24). Still, there are moments during the day that have been hallowed by tradition as times particularly appropriate for prayer. Concerning these times, Tertullian comments:
It was at the third hour that the Holy Spirit was poured upon the assembled disciples. Peter, on the day he had the vision of all [the creatures] in the sheet, climbed up to higher places through the grace of prayer at the sixth hour. Likewise John: at the ninth hour he went to the temple, where he restored a paralytic to health (Tert. de orat. 24-25).2
Although these customary prayers at the third, sixth and ninth hours are best said in common, Tertullian does not regard them as juridical obligations that bind Christians. More important, in his view, are the morning and evening prayers. These he calls the legitimae orationes, prayers of such fundamental importance for the daily life of Christians that they possess what amounts to the prescriptive force of law.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 55