____________________
1 J. Mateos “The Origins of the Divine Office” Worship 41 (1967) 477–485.
2 Tertullian, De oratione: CCL 1.272.
3 Translation from A. Hamman, Early Christian Prauers (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1961) pp. 254–255.
4 See C. W. Dugmore, The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine Office, Alcuin Club Collection 45 (London: Faith Press 1964) and D. Hadidian “The Background and Origin of the Christian Hours of Prayer” Theological Studies 25 (1964) 59–69.
5 Mateos “The Origins of the Divine Office” pp. 481–482 and W. Storey “The Liturgy of the Hours: Cathedral versus Monastery” Christians at Prayer, ed. J. Gallen (Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press 1977) pp. 61–82.
6 A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien au quatrième siècle, StA 57 (Rome: Herder 1968) pp. 276–323.
7 A. van der Mensbrugghe “Prayer-Time in Egyptian Monasticism” Studia Patristica 2, TU 64 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1957) 435–454.
8 Ibid., pp. 450–451.
9 Veilleux, La liturgie, pp. 282–283.
10 Ibid., pp. 292–315.
11 See Storey “The Liturgy of the Hours” pp. 65–66.
12 Translation from the Greek text: PG 23.1172.
13 John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction, ACW 31.126–127.
14 Translation from the Greek text: Didascalia et Contitutiones Apostolorum, ed. F. Funk (1905; rpt. Turin: Bottega D’Erasmo 1964) pp. 171–173.
15 Egeria’s Travels, tr. J. Wilkinson (London: SPCK 1971) pp. 124–125.
16 Mateos “The Origins of the Divine Office” pp. 484–485.
17 This table is an expansion of the comparative diagram of the Roman, RM and RB versions of the vigils as given in the Vogüé, 5.435–436.
18 Ibid., p. 471.
19 On Benedict’s use of the Lord’s Prayer at this point in the office see ibid., 2.251.
20 On the question of the origins of the office of Prime and its place in Benedict’s system of prayer-house, see ibid., 5.116–518.
21 One will notice a lack of symmetry between Lauds and Vespers in RB. See ibid., 5.495–498.
22 References to the Rule of the Master and its liturgical materials will be given according to the edition of A. de Vogüé, La Règle du Maître, SC 105–107 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf 1964–65), cited as de Vogüé, RM with volume and pages.
For the comparison between the general shape of the office in RB and RM, see de Vogüé 1.101–103 and “Scholies sur la Regie du Maître” RAM 44 (1968) 121–159.
23 De Vogüé, RM, 1.55, n.4.
24 De Vogüé, 5.383–418.
25 A. de Vogüé “Origine et structure de l’office benedictin” CollCist 29 (1967) 195, n.1.
26 See RB 13.10, where the reference to the canticles used at Lauds on weekdays seems to be an influence of Roman cathedral practice.
27 See RB 18.23-25, where the principle of weekly recitation of the whole psalter is staunchly defended.
28 See de Vogüé “Origine et structure” p. 195 for a discussion of the Byzantine custom. See de Vogüé 1.102–104 for a table comparing the Roman Office, RB and the Byzantine Office.
29 De Vogüé “Origine et structure” p. 195.
30 Ibid., pp. 195–196.
31 Ibid., p. 196, n.2.
32 De Vogüé, 5.476–477.
33 For the text of this hymn, see Didasc.apost. 7,48.
34 De Vogüé, 5.493.
35 Ibid., p. 493, n.25.
36 Ibid., p. 535.
37 Ibid. For some further examples of the way the monastic tradition of Arles and Lerins influenced RB, see Ibid., pp. 449–450, 478, 491.
38 Erik Routley, Hymns and Human Life (London: John Murray 1952) pp. 21–23.
39 For these five methods of performing psalmody, see J. A. Lamb, The Psalms in Christian Worship (London: Faith Press 1962) pp. 38–45.
40 C. Gindele “Die Römische und monastische Überlieferung im Ordo Officii der Regel St. Benedikts” StA 42 (1957) 171–222.
41 For examples, see J. Mateos “La psalmodie dans le rite byzantin” Proche-Orient chrétien 15 (1965) 107–126; “Les matines chaldéennes, maronites et syriennes” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 26 (1960) 51–73.
42 A. de Vogüé “Le sens d’‘antifana’ et la longueur de l’office dans la ‘Regula Magistri’” RBén 71 (1961) 119–124.
43 De Vogüé, RM, 1.60–61.
44 De Vogüé, “Origine et structure” p. 198.
45 De Vogüé, 2.522, note on RB 14.2.
46 De Vogüé, 5.532.
47 Mateos “La psalmodie dans le rite byzantin” p. 107.
48 De Vogüé, 2.511, note on RB 9.3.
49 Sanchti Benedicti Regula Monachorum, ed. C. Butler (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 1912) p. 205, n.1.
50 De Vogüé, RM, 1.59.
51 See L. Brou “Les Benedictiones ou cantique des trois enfants dans l’ancienne messe españole” Hispania Sacra 1 (1948) 26–33.
52 For the text of the canons of the Fourth Council of Toledo on this matter, see J. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Graz: Akademische Druck 1960) 10.623.
53 Brou “Les Benedictiones” p. 22.
54 De Vogüé, RM, 1.59.
55 Ibid.
56 See, for example, de Vogüé, 5.443–450 on the readings at weekday Vigils.
57 This expression was used by Cassian, inst. 3,3; see the reference in Butler, Sancti Benedicti, p. 44.
58 The comparative table is taken from de Vogüé, 5.487.
59 Ibid., 5.491.
60 The phrase servitutis officia may be found in a postcommunion prayer for Palm Sunday in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary. For Latin text see Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Aeclesiae ordinis anni circuli, ed. C. Mohlberg, Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Major: Fontes 4 (Rome: Herder 1960) p. 54, n.332.
61 I. Hausherr “Opus Dei” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 13 (1947) 195–218.
62 De Vogüé, 5.497.
63 Ibid., for the proposal that RM’s six-psalm arrangement for Vespers is in accord with the more ancient, pre-classical Roman tradition.
64 Ibid., 5.519–525.
65 Ibid., 5.522.
66 Ibid., 5.524–525.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid., 5.465.
69 Ibid., 5.455.
70 Ibid., 5.457.
71 Ibid., 5.462.
72 Ibid., 5.467–468.
73 Ibid., 5.470–472.
74 De Vogüé, RM, 1.38–39.
75 See discussion, Ibid., 1.41–42.
76 Ibid., 1.39.
77 De Vogüé, 1.86.
78 The absence of references to Christmas and Epiphany does not mean that these feasts were not celebrated at this period. See A. A. McArthur, The Evolution of the Christian Year (London: SCM Press 1953) pp. 31–76.
79 De Vogüé, 1.96.
80 Ibid., 1.96–97.
81 See B. Steidle, The Rule of St. Benedict, tr. U. Schnitzhofer (Canon City, Colo.: Holy Cross Abbey 1967) pp. 132–134.
82 A. de Vogüé “Problems of the Monastic Conventual Mass” DR 87 (1969) 328.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., pp. 327–330 for some of this evidence.
85 R. Grégoire “La Communion des moines-prêtres à la messe d’après les coutumiers monastiques médiévaux” Sacris Erudiri 18 (1967–1968) 524–549.
86 De Vogüé “Problems of the Monastic Conventual Mass” p. 327.
87 Ibid., pp. 327–328, where de Vogüé seems to accept oblatio as a reference to Eucharist. For a contrasting opinion see Steidle, The Rule of St. Benedict, pp. 260–262.
88 See E. de Bhaldraithe “Problems of the Monastic Conventual Mass” DR 90 (1972) 170.
89 De Vogüé, 2.574, note on RB 38.2.
90 De Bhaldraithe “Problems” p. 170.
91 De Vogüé “Problems of the Monastic Conventual Mass” p. 328.
92 De Vogüé, 2.527, note on RB 17.5.
93 Ibid., 5.581.
94 Several different series of such psalter collects were compiled during this period: an African series, an Italian series and several Spanish series. See de Vogüé, 5.584–585.
95 De Vogüé, 5.582–583. See also A. de Vogüé “Le sens de l’office divin d’après la Règle de s. Benoît” RAM 42 (1966) 391–404; 43 (1967) 21–33.
96 De Vogüé “Le sens de l’office divin” pp. 21–28.
97 Ibid., pp. 27–28.
Appendix 4
The Disciplinary Measures in the Rule of Benedict
The end of the “Age of Martyrs” marked the beginning of a surge of penitential practices and developments in the early Church.1 Linked to this was the accelerated growth of monasticism and monastic forms of life, typified by the desert hermit and culminating in the coenobium. Here ascetics gathered to live a common life under the guidance of a spiritual master and a rule of life.2 From the abundant literature by and about these ascetic sages, it is clear that they saw in their austere lives a perpetuation of the spirit of the martyrs,3 who achieved the fullness of Christian life and hope by crowning their baptism in water with their baptism in blood. This was to make a virtue of a necessity. But the virtue proved too precious to be permitted to pass away with the end of the persecutions. The monk thus came forward as the “white martyr,”4 who sought the perfection of the baptismal life through cultivating the “way of penance” (paenitentia secunda)5 as the primary means to regenerate one’s paenitentia prima, i.e., baptism.
The association between monastic life and penance was therefore not contrived. But it needs proper understanding through careful study of the sources and forces that constitute the essence of a life of participation in the sufferings of Christ (RB Prol.50). In this perspective, it is readily seen that the RB should be no exception to its times when it treats at length the penalties one may incur in the monastery. Yet, compared to his most immediate sources, Cassian and the Rule of the Master,6 St. Benedict is quite brief and concise in his disciplinary legislation, but also more thorough, circumspect and humane.
The historical context
During the third century, the West developed a rather uniform penitential practice as a public act within the Church’s liturgy under the watchful direction of the hierarchy.7 At the same time, in the East, an alternate approach to penance was evolving. Here the “spiritual person” (pneumatikos) emerged as the foremost minister of the Church’s role in the forgiveness of sins. The East did not generally succumb to the rigorism that predominated in the West; rather, it allowed for more than a single reception of sacramental penance within a lifetime, and distinguished several degrees of penitents: (1) the “weeping” (flentes), who remained outside the liturgical assembly and wept for forgiveness; (2) the “listeners” (audientes), who had to leave with the catechumens after hearing the “liturgy of the word”; (3) the “prostrate” (substrati), who had to kneel or lie prone, begging forgiveness of the assembly; (4) the “standing” (stantes), who could remain standing for the entire liturgy with those in full communion, without, however, being permitted to receive the Eucharist. These steps can be seen developing already in Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, and are fully present in Basil of Caesarea.8 Origen, a persuasive proponent of the pneumatikos in the Church,9 still concedes to the bishop the most prominent role in the exercise of sacramental penance. But in the bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, the penitential system is found to be rather flexible. By securing a “letter of recommendation” from a martyr,10 a repentant apostate could obtain readmission to the Church without the mediation of the hierarchy. Eventually, under the influence of such practices, the public character of penance gave way to “private” forms, especially under the direction of the “successors to the martyrs,” the monks.11
In the West, by the end of the fourth century, penitential practices began to decline—not through laxity, but because they became too demanding. First, there were those who denied altogether the Church’s power to forgive certain sins.12 In turn, Popes Siricius (384–399), Innocent I (401–417), and in particular Leo I (440–461) issued decrees allowing for the reduction of public penance, while maintaining it for especially serious sins; these, however, were still considered forgivable only once after baptism. At the same time, extremely hard sanctions were imposed upon these sinners. They were not permitted to marry or hold public office or to use the baths,13 and so on. Soon sacramental penance was generally viewed primarily as immediate preparation for death or to be used only in case of serious illness.14 Penitents, because they were refused marriage and public positions, were looked upon more and more as a type of monk. This association between the penitent and monastic life often encouraged pious laypersons, particularly in France and Spain, to take up the life of penance voluntarily and to associate themselves as conversi with a monastery, while continuing their life in the world.15
Finally, the barbarization of society at St. Benedict’s time further stimulated ecclesial and religious institutions to produce detailed and stringent penal legislation, for the Church, more than the civil institutions, had the stability and capacity to bring about some state of “law and order.”
Under these conditions and, to a large extent, in response to them, the Patriarch of Western Monasticism drafted a Rule that brought together many of the best and most balanced disciplinary measures of the Church’s tradition and practice in both the East and the West. These he supplemented and modified with his own experiences and scriptural insights. The outcome was such a well-formed alliance of asceticism and moderation that the RB has survived the test of the centuries beyond numerous other monastic rules.16
But it was not interest in civil law and order or in longevity of his Rule that motivated Benedict’s disciplinary legislation; rather, it was simply the Christian life itself as lived in a monastery and as founded in its most outstanding source—revelation. Even when other monastic and spiritual traditions of the Church occur point for point in the RB’s disciplinary provisions, it is clear that St. Benedict made use of them only because they were, in his mind, adequate expressions of the motives he found in Scripture: “What page, what passage of the inspired books of the Old and New Testaments is not the truest of guides for human life? What book of the holy catholic Fathers does not resoundingly summon us along the true way to reach the Creator?” (RB 73.3-4).
Therefore, our interest here is directed principally toward gaining a deeper insight into St. Benedict’s spiritual motivation. The reconstruction of the traditions and history that finally resulted in the Rule is not the object of our pursuit17 except to the extent that it serves to illuminate or illustrate the point at hand.
Main characteristics of corrective legislation in RB
The major portion of St. Benedict’s corrective legislation is found in RB 23–30 and 44, often referred to somewhat inaccurately as the “penal code.” In addition, there are many other statements of a disciplinary nature found dispersed throughout the Rule. These all provide for the correction of various faults, large and small, through several forms of sanction, including corporal punishment and expulsion from the monastery. However, it would be incorrect to view this disciplinary legislation as if it had from its inception “canonical status” that gave it recognition and force throughout the Church.18 Instead, the RB applies the elements of ecclesial discipline to monastic life without claiming that it thereby also imposes these penalties with the same canonical force that they otherwise held in the Church. Often the disciplinary legislation of the RB reflects more the spirit of an earlier age than of its own times. This is largely due to Benedict’s choice of sources and traditions and especially his very conscious effort to shape monastic life and discipline according to the Gospel (RB Prol.21; 11.9; 23.2).
St. Benedict notes (RB 23.2) that monastic discipline is to be “in accord with our Lord’s injunction” (Matt 18:15-17). Therefore, two secret admonishments are to be given to a brother “found to be stubborn or disobedient or proud, if he grumbles or in any way despises the
holy rule and defies the orders of his seniors” (RB 23.1). If that proves ineffective, the wrongdoer is to be rebuked “in the presence of everyone.”19
The Rule of the Master (12.2-3) speaks of “two or three warnings” (with no mention of their being given in secret) before the recalcitrant is brought to the abbot for excommunication, pronounced in the presence of the superiors and the community.20 St. Benedict reshapes the RM to bring the ruling more exactly in line with the New Testament, without, however, succumbing to a fundamentalist use of Scripture. This is seen in the case of a remiss prior, who is to be verbally corrected up to four times (RB 65.18). After that, if he still has not responded properly, he is to undergo the correptio disciplinae regularis (RB 65.19), that is, the “public” process of correction,21 which could even conclude with the prior’s removal from office and expulsion from the monastery.
The RM, in an analogous situation of the abbot’s hand-picked successor, prescribes that if he does not amend after being warned by the abbot (RM 93.77), he is to have his name stricken from the diptych, be deposed and undergo punishment, namely, excommunication, as any other negligent member of the community would (RM 93.78-79).
The Master seems to have an indefinite number of warnings in mind for a neglectful abbot-designate. But St. Benedict, who characteristically refrains from stipulating specifics (leaving them to the discretion of the abbot), wishes to set definite limits and guidelines for dealing with a superior in need of correction. Clearly, he has had unfavorable experiences with priors (RB 65). Yet, greater than usual patience is required in correcting them, lest the abbot make a hasty or imprudent decision because of some envy or jealousy in himself (RB 65.22).
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 60