Canticle Canticle
Psalms 148–150 Psalms 148–150
As one can see, Benedict’s arrangement permits a bit more variability (two variable psalms each day), while keeping most of the elements familiar in the Roman Office: Psalm 50(51); Psalm 62(63) on Sundays (RB 12.3); the canticle; the laudes. The practice of beginning Lauds with a psalm recited without refrain (cf. RB 12.1; 13.2—Psalm 66[67]) may have been derived from the monastic tradition of Arles.59
h) Opus Dei. This term, hallowed in Benedictine tradition, does not actually appear in the liturgical code (RB 8–20). It does surface in a number of places outside the code (e.g., RB 7.63; 22.6; 43.t,3; etc.). In the liturgical code itself, other phrases are employed to refer to the Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office. For example, the title of RB 8 uses officium divinum (in the plural), here translated as “Divine Office.” The title of RB 16 has divina opera (in the plural), here translated as “Divine Office” (cf. 19.2). In RB 16.2 the term servitutis officia appears, here translated as “obligations of service.”60 Finally, in RB 17.7, the Greek liturgical term for an “assembly” (synaxis) appears in reference to Vespers only. Thus the present translation renders the Latin of 17.7 (“Vespertina … synaxis”) simply by “Vespers.” For a fuller account of the history of the term opus Dei, readers are referred to the almost classic article on the subject by Irenaeus Hausherr.61
i) Vespera (13.12: “agenda … vespertina”; 15.3). Translated throughout as “Vespers.” As is usually the case in the liturgical code, Benedict shows his indebtedness to the Roman Office in his format for Vespers. However, while the classical Roman Office had five psalms at this service, RB reduces the number to four.62 Vespers in RB also differs from the evening prayer described in RM 36 and 41, where six psalms are assigned for each day.63 It may also be noted that RM and RB differ in their terminology for this evening hour of the Divine Office. RM ordinarily uses lucernaria (literally, ‘lamp-lighting’) to refer to the hour of office and reserves vespera (‘evening’) as a designation for the time of day.64 On the other hand, Benedict never uses the term lucernaria. De Vogüé has written that the term lucernaria (or: lucernarium) seems not to have been known in Rome.65 There, Vespera was used to designate both time of day and the evening hour of the office (the counterpart of Lauds). Some scholars have argued that the presence of a term like lucernaria, in RM and other sources, is a sign of “high antiquity.” De Vogüé disputes this claim and insists that use of the term lucernaria simply indicates “non-Roman provenance” and nothing more.66 Thus, while the ancient Church certainly knew a “lamp-lighting” service of prayer and praise, the lucernaria of a sixth-century document like RM means simply “the evening psalmody.” RB’s use of the alternative term, vespera, simply situates the document in the “pure Roman” tradition.67
j) Vigiliae (8.3). Translated here as “Vigils.” Besides vigiliae, a number of different terms are used in RB to indicate the night office: vigiliae nocturnae (9.11); nocturna laus (10.t); nocturnos (15.2); nocturnis vigiliis (16.4). All these terms have been rendered by the English “Vigils” in the present translation, with the exception of nocturna laus (“Night Office”: 10.t). The variance in terminology for this office in RB is reflected as well in other monastic sources of the same period. For example, Caesarius and Aurelian of Arles call the ordinary weekday night office nocturni, while reserving the term vigiliae for Saturdays, Sundays and feasts.68 RM keeps the term vigiliae for full-length vigils, i.e., for the vigils that begin on Saturday evening and end in the early hours of Sunday morning (RM 49).
Some remarks have already been made about the difference between RM and RB in the matter of vigils. RB’s abandonment of the “all-night” vigil distinguishes it from an almost universal custom among monks in the East, in Gaul and in Italy. Indeed, throughout the fifth and sixth centuries, one can say that monks kept the practice of all-night vigils not only on great festivals but weekly.69 How, then, can one explain Benedict’s departure from this sacrosanct custom?
De Vogüé has noted that, like the Roman Office, Benedict has replaced the all-night vigil (one spread throughout the entire night) with an office of fixed structure and predictable duration—an office that comes at the end of the night after the monks have had an opportunity for a full night’s sleep.70 Thus, while RM tries to maintain vigils at least on some occasions, RB rallies to the practice of Rome, where we seem to find the earliest evidence for abandoning vigils.71 It would be idle to speculate on the reasons why all-night vigils were abandoned in RB. Suffice it to say that in calling his night office “Vigils,” Benedict is following a tradition which, in the opinion of de Vogüé, is just as ancient and legitimate as restriction of the term to the all-night office described in RM.72
One final remark may be made on the subject of Vigils in RB. While Benedict’s sources for the structure of weekday Vigils include RM, the Roman Office and the tradition of Arles and Lerins, his source for Sunday Vigils is exclusively the Roman Office. Even so, Benedict has modified his Roman source. Whereas the Roman Office sometimes lengthened the first part of the psalmody for Sunday Vigils (12, 14 or 19 psalms), Benedict adhered strictly to twelve psalms for the entire office.73
Times and seasons in the Rule of Benedict
a) The Church year in the Rule of the Master. According to the provisions found in RM, the year had two basic divisions: (1) winter: from the autumnal equinox until Easter; and (2) summer: from Easter until the autumnal equinox. This basic rhythm of two seasons is modified somewhat by a specifically religious and liturgical concern, the celebration of Easter. Easter is always the point at which the changeover from the winter season to the summer season occurs. It thus marks both the change of natural season (winter to summer) and the change of liturgical time (Lent to Paschaltide).74 Related to the Easter festival in RM is the Christmas-Epiphany cycle. Both Easter and Christmas are preceded by a period of penitential preparation. Eight days of fast and abstinence are observed before Christmas (RM 45.4-7). As one might expect, the period of preparation for Easter is much longer. On the day after Epiphany, RM directs that the singing of “alleluia” be discontinued (RM 45.9); at the same time, there begin the “one hundred days” of fasting before Easter (centesima Paschae: RM 45.11).75 Lent proper begins six weeks before Easter. RM also makes explicit reference to observances on the days of the “paschal triduum”: Holy Thursday (e.g., RM 53.26), Good Friday (e.g., RM 53.47) and Holy Saturday (e.g., RM 53.47). Moreover, RM refers to other prominent liturgical days like the Octave of Easter (RM 53.55) and the Vigil of Pentecost (RM 28.45).
The central focus of the week in RM is, of course, Sunday with its all-night vigil beginning Saturday evening, its celebration of the Eucharist, its provision for two meals, and its use of the “alleluia.”76
b) The Church year in RB. RB’s organization of the year is similar to that of RM. There are two basic seasons, summer and winter (see, e.g., RB 8–10). Unlike RM, however, RB is not uniform in its directions for the beginning of the winter season. Liturgically, winter begins on the “first of November” (8.1), while the winter season of fasting begins in September and the winter schedule for work begins on the first of October. It should be observed that the variable dates for the beginning of the winter season have their parallels in other monastic and ecclesiastical sources. For example, the Augustinian Ordo monasterii parallels RB’s dating of Vigils during the winter season (Aug. ord.mon. 2).77
The Easter-Pentecost season is mentioned in the liturgical code (see, e.g., 15.1), as is Lent (15.2-3). But unlike RM, RB is silent about the Christmas-Epiphany cycle.78 Nor are the days of the paschal triduum described. Further, as we have already noticed, RB has abandoned the weekly all-night vigil on Saturday-Sunday.
Of some interest is Benedict’s use of the term caput quadragesimae (translated here as “the beginning of Lent”: 15.2). This phrase appears four times in RB (15.2; 41.6; 48.10,16). Caput quadragesimae was, of course, an expression frequently found in ancient liturgical books, whe
re it ordinarily designated the sixth Sunday before Easter.79 But Benedict fails to supply any exact date for this beginning of Lent, nor does he repeat the mathematical calculations of RM, which sought to make up the full complement of forty days in Lent by adding some supplementary fast days in advance of the sixth Sunday before Easter.80
Finally, it may be noted that while RB makes a general reference to saints’ days and festivals (RB 14), there is no mention of specific saints or feasts (other than Easter and Pentecost) in the liturgical code.
c) The computation of time in RB. A word should be said about the way RB computes the various hours of day and night (see, e.g., RB 8.1: “the eighth hour of the night”). In the ancient world there were two basic divisions to each day: the period from sunup to sundown (“day”), and the period from sundown to sunup (“night”). Each of these periods was divided into twelve segments called horae (‘hours’). There were, therefore, “twelve hours of day” and “twelve hours of night.” But since sunup and sundown varied constantly throughout the year, these hours would not always have been equal in length. For example, in the summer an hour during the day would have been longer than an hour during the night, for the simple reason that the nights are shorter at that time of year. Similarly, an hour during the day in summer would have been longer (roughly eighty minutes) than an hour during the day in winter (roughly forty minutes). Only at the two equinoxes would the hours of day and night have been nearly equivalent. Thus, the “eighth hour of the night” (8.1) would have varied, according to modern measurements of “clock time,” as much as forty minutes, depending upon whether the season was summer or winter.81 Because of these variables in the computation of time, the present translation has rendered the time references in the liturgical code literally (e.g., “the eighth hour of the night”: 8.1; “the middle of the night”: 8.2).
The Eucharist in RB
To the modern reader, the scarcity of references to the Eucharist in the RB may seem scandalous. The term eucharistia never appears in RB, although it does occur in RM (72.8). But there are other differences between RB and RM in this matter as well. Some of these are discussed in the paragraphs that follow.
a) The Eucharist in RM. The Master provides for the monks to receive Communion under both species each day. The abbot of the monastery, even if he is not an ordained cleric, is responsible for distributing the Eucharist. According to de Vogüé, this distribution took place “at a Communion service held between part of the office—Sext, None or Vespers—and the common meal.”82 Concerning this practice in RM, de Vogüé goes on to comment:
This communion extra missam seems to have been performed according to a short rite of which the only part familiar to us is the kiss of peace. As for the eucharistic sacrifice, the monks appear to have attended it only on Sundays, and doubtless went to the parish church to do so. Mass was celebrated in the oratory of the monastery only on rare and special occasions, when the secular clergy were invited.83
That the ancient monks did not celebrate the Eucharist every day can be shown from literature both monastic and non-monastic.84 Even after the custom of ordaining large numbers of monks developed, priest-monks did not necessarily celebrate (or concelebrate) the Eucharist every day. A study of medieval monastic customaries, for example, has revealed that ordained monks frequently communicated with the rest of the community at the conventual Eucharist. It was certainly not considered obligatory for a priest-monk to “say his Mass” every day.85
b) The Eucharist in RB. What, then, can be said about the celebration of the Eucharist in RB? As we have seen, the liturgical code of RB makes no references at all to Mass. The term missa does appear in the code (17.4,5,8,10), as well as in three places outside the code (35.14; 38.2; 60.4). But in none of these instances is it clear beyond all doubt that missa means “Mass.”86 At this period in the development of liturgical terminology, missa can simply mean ‘dismissal’ or the concluding blessings and prayers that are said before the conclusion of a liturgical service (whether Mass or office). The same thing can be said about the term oblatio, which does appear in RB but not in the liturgical code (59.1,8). Although oblatio was used of the Eucharistic celebration in literature of the period, it does not necessarily have this meaning in chapter 59, where the subject is noble parents who want to present their sons to the monastery.87
One does find in RB, however, the term communio. This word occurs three times, but never in the liturgical code. In RB 63.4, the monks are directed to approach the “kiss of peace” and the “Communion” according to their rank in the community. Almost certainly this is a reference to the reception of the Eucharist. But it does not necessarily refer to the celebration of Mass, since, as we have seen, RM gives similar instructions for the reception of Communion daily after office and before the meal. In other words, RB may simply be following RM at this point—a ritual of Communion (outside Mass) that includes the exchange of the kiss of peace.
Again, in RB 38.10, the term communio appears, this time in reference to the weekly reader at table. The reader is to be given a mixtum (a drink of wine, most probably) “because of the holy Communion” (propter communionem sanctam). Once more RB follows RM, where a similar practice is mentioned (RM 24.14). The reference in RB 38.10 may, then, signify a daily reception of the Eucharist along the lines indicated in RM.88
Finally, communio occurs in RB 38.2 in the phrase post missas et communionem. De Vogüé seems to feel that this phrase means “after Mass and Communion,” especially since the verse (38.2) deals with Sunday.89But as Eoin de Bhaldraithe has pointed out, missas here “may very well mean the end of Sext, for this is exactly how it is described in 17,13” (17.5 according to the versification used in this edition).90 Even RB 38.2, then, may not actually be a reference to the full Eucharistic celebration, though de Vogüé’s opinion cannot be dismissed lightly.
Should we conclude that RB knows nothing at all about a Eucharist in the monastery, even on Sundays? Probably not. De Vogüé’s conclusion on the matter seems both sound and cautious. He writes: “At most it is possible that a conventual Mass in St. Benedict’s monastery was celebrated on Sundays and feast days. But perhaps Mass was celebrated less often, even without fixed regularity.”91
Psalmody and prayer in RB
Before concluding these notes on the liturgical code, some comments should be offered on the relationship between psalmody and “prayer” in RB. RB 20.4-5 reads:
Prayer should therefore be short and pure, unless perhaps it is prolonged under the inspiration of divine grace. In community, however, prayer should always be brief; and when the superior gives the signal, all should rise together.
What is this “short,” “brief” prayer that Benedict describes in chapter 20? Earlier in the liturgical code, at RB 17.5, oratio (“prayer”) seems to be a global reference to the entire Divine Office.92 Do the references to prayer found in chapter 20 mean that the whole Divine Office should be characterized by brevity? Or is there another meaning for “prayer” in RB 20?
Some assistance in answering these questions may be sought in the ancient use of psalmody in both the monastic and the cathedral traditions. St. Athanasius, John Cassian and Egeria’s Travels all refer to the “prayer” that followed the singing of a psalm.93 The practice of offering prayer after the psalm was one way to “Christianize” the psalter. Prayer permitted the community to appropriate the meaning of the psalm in the light of Jesus’ life, ministry, mission and destiny. In the cathedral tradition especially, this “psalm-prayer” involved both a brief period of silent personal prayer following the psalm and a collect or oration said by the presiding minister. The so-called psalter collects developed significantly in the fifth to the seventh centuries. They were written down and circulated in a number of different churches.94
Whether or not such formal psalter collects were known in monastic circles is a debated point. While Cassian seems to be familiar with them, RB makes no clear references to these collects. Nor are Benedict’s allusions t
o the silent prayer after the psalms as clear as those found in the Master (see RM 14.1,20; 33.44; 55.6,18; 56.3-7). De Vogüé comments that, unlike the cathedral tradition, psalter collects may not have been customary in monastic circles.95 But at the same time he argues that silent personal prayer following the psalm was very much a part of the monastic tradition.
The references to prayer in RB 20.4-5 may, therefore, be an allusion to the monastic custom of prostrating for silent prayer after the psalm, even if no psalter collect was to follow. According to de Vogüé, these periods of silent prayer were an intrinsic part of the psalmody in monastic tradition.96 The psalms acted as invitations to prayer (the silent prayer of the heart). For in the older monastic practice, the psalm was not regarded as human homage rendered to God but rather as God’s message to humanity, awakening the response of prayer. Like other parts of Scripture, the psalms were readings that invited and encouraged the prayer of the heart. Thus the psalm (reading) awakened a response (interior prayer) that was sometimes gathered up into the words of a public prayer (psalter collect). This three-stage movement—reading, personal prayer, collect—was an important way for Christians to appropriate the deeper meaning of the psalms. Sometimes the “Glory be to the Father” was also used as a way to “Christianize” the psalter. The liturgical code of RB directs the use of the “Glory be” with the psalms (see, e.g., 9.2,6; 11.3; 13.9; 17.2; 18.1).97
Summary
Overall, it can be said that the liturgical code in RB reflects both originality and faithfulness to the earlier monastic tradition. Benedict was not afraid to draw upon a variety of sources for his liturgical material: RM, the Roman Office, the monastic tradition of Arles and Lerins, cathedral usages from Jerusalem, Milan, Spain. Nor was he hesitant about introducing new elements into the liturgy for monks (e.g., hymnody). While maintaining traditional elements (e.g., the weekly psalter from the Roman Office) he adapted and modified those elements, shaping them to his own purposes. RB is, therefore, a good example of the way Christians have remained faithful to a liturgical tradition precisely by adapting it to meet changing circumstances.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 59