RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict

by Saint Benedict

  19 See RB 23.3: coram omnibus, which also calls to mind 1 Tim 5:20, and is not used in Benedict’s monastic sources.

  20 RM 13.5: “praesentibus suis praepositis vel cetera congregatione circumstante.”

  21 See de Vogüé, 2.658. Fuller treatment of this and related expressions follows in this study.

  22 This is not to be confused with the classification of excommunicants as tolerati or vitandi—a distinction first made by Martin V in 1418. Cf. Gasparri, Fontes I,58 (“Ad Evitanda”).

  23 Reg.fus. 28.1; reg. 57.

  24 At this point, St. Benedict seems to be dependent on Origen’s hom. in Iesu Nave 7,6. After citing Matt 5:30, the Alexandrian theologian remarks that when all other efforts at correcting someone fail, then there “remains only the remedy of surgical operation” (solum superest remedium desecandi). This is for the good of all, to prevent their being infected “by the one diseased sheep” (sicut ex una ove morbida grex universus inficitur). See F. Hockey “Origen—Used by St. Benedict in His Rule?” RBén 72 (1962) 349–350. RM 13.4 likewise speaks of the excommunicated monk “velut quaedam scabies est procreate in grege.” While this expresses much the same idea as RB 28.8, Benedict’s choice and arrangement of words (ne una ovis morbida omnem gregem contagiet) are strikingly similar to Origen’s.

  25 See de Vogüé, 7.273.

  26 De Vogüé, 5.748, believes the omission is due to St. Benedict’s abhorrence of the idea of abandoning one to the devil. Later in the text (p. 846), he adds that the omission is more readily explained by a textual variation of 1 Cor 5:5 found among some Latin authors. However, these explanations fail to convince, since it seems certain that Benedict takes his cue from Cassian (inst. 2,16) for the use of 1 Cor 5:5 in RB 25.4. Cassian speaks exclusively of one’s being “handed over to Satan.” This expression, as pointed out in the text above, can evoke several New Testament passages—among them, 1 Cor 5:5. Thus, St. Benedict is stimulated by Cassian’s language to think of 1 Cor 5:5, while, at the same time, omitting precisely Cassian’s words in quoting this passage. We must conclude that he does so intentionally, because the connotations the expression would suggest would not serve his purposes or theology. As with Paul, “to be handed over to Satan” could only mean to Benedict expulsion not only from the monastery but also from the Church—analogous to expulsion from Paradise and to being given over to the realm and power of Satan. But as long as the monk is in the monastery, though being subjected to some form of excommunication, he is certainly in the Church and not “handed over to Satan.” Moreover, even a monk who has been expelled from the monastery could hardly be considered excommunicated from the Church, since faults that may lead one out of the monastic life do not necessarily lead one out of the Church itself. Ultimately, Benedict accommodates 1 Cor 5:5 to the monastic context, without doing violence to Paul or to the monk being subjected to correction.

  27 “Iam non dicendi fratres sed heretici…iam non dicendi filii Dei sed operarii daemonis” (RM 13.2-3).

  28 In his Code of Law from 527, Justinian revived all earlier laws against heretics (including pagans, Jews and Samaritans) and subjected Manichaeans to capital punishment (cf. Codex Justiniamis, C.S. 80 v.9, edited by Krüger). None of these could accept a political or military honor or office; nor could they act as rhetoricians or lawyers. The task of enforcement of the laws was left in the hands of bishops. See H. S. Alivisatos, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung des Kaisers Justinian I (1913; rpt. Aalen: Scientia Verlag 1973) pp. 32–33.

  29 The intent of 1 Cor 5:5 could only be full and permanent excommunication as Paul wrote it and as implied in v.2 (“Let him who has done this be removed from among you”) and reaffirmed in v.13: “God judges those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you”’ (cf. Deut 13:5).

  30 “Spirit” is never used in Paul to mean the “soul” in contrast to the material body. Rather, it means here “the person as converted to Christ.” See Hein, Eucharist and Excommunication, p. 95. Likewise, Benedict never uses “spirit” to mean “soul” (RB Prol.11; 2.3; 7.70; 25.4; 38.2; 49.6; 58.2; 65.2).

  31 As in RB 24.4, it may well be that Paul intends non-association at table as the first and foremost step (rather than the last step) in dealing with a wrongdoer. See Hein, Eucharist and Excommunication, pp. 96–97. It is also noteworthy that Paul’s lists of sins that exclude one from the Kingdom of God correspond to the lists that sever one from association with the community. Cf. Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5: 1 Cor 6:9-10; Col 3:5-8.

  32 Ta hagia tois hagiois. See W. Eiert, Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsächlich des Ostens (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus 1954) pp. 65–66.

  33 The concepts developed in this section were stimulated by Abbot Martin J. Burne’s paper “Sacred Scripture in the Rule of Benedict,” First Lecture (p. 15), delivered at the Formation Directors’ Workshop, Saint Paul’s Abbey, Newton, N.J., 1975. Any misrepresentation of that material here is to be attributed only to the fault of the present writer.

  34 Explicit mention of “covenant” is made only in RB 2.14 in a quotation from Ps 49(50):16-17. However, the very concept of excommunication derives from the idea of covenant and the possibility that one can be severed from it. Cf. Num 15:30; Heb 6:4-6; also Hein, Eucharist and Excommunication, pp. 136–147.

  35 We cannot but think here of the Benedictine motto, Pax. Peace is not only the requirement for life in community, but the pax is also the sign and seal of a life of penance and conversion.

  36 In this same context, the RM quotes rather exclusively from Matthew. Benedict’s independence from the Master and his preference for Paul indicates his deliberate intention to view excommunication in a more theological light than many of his monastic sources did.

  37 “Nec corpora sua nec voluntates licet habere in propria voluntate.”

  38 “Ex illo die nec proprii corporis potestatem se habiturum scit.”

  39 Eg., 1 Cor 6:12, 19; 7:4; Eph 5:21, 28–33. See de Vogüé, 7.394–395 for further consideration of monastic fidelity to the covenant with Christ, sealed in baptism and lived out through the monastic way of life.

  40 Consolentur eum ne abundantiori tristitia absorbeatur . . . confirmetur in eo caritas et oretur pro eo ab omnibus. RM 15.26 also mentions the prayers of all for the excommunicated.

  41 See note to RB 27.2.

  42 See de Vogüé, 5.749.

  43 Especially during the third century, Western Christianity often developed concepts and practices of cultic purity taken from the Old Testament, perhaps as a reaction to Gnostic and heretical depreciation of Yahweh and the experiences of Israel.

  44 Cf. H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 vols. (Munich: Beck 1922–61) 4.2930–333.

  45 The idea of profaning the Eucharistic sacrifice is found explicitly in 1 Cor 11:27. In the ancient world, the presence of a person incapable of proper association with the divine (that is, “impure”) invited the wrath of God not only upon himself but also upon all those near him. See Jon 1:4-15; G. B. Miles and G. Trompf “Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27–28 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution and Shipwreck” Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976) 259–267; also M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966; rpt. New York: Praeger 1970).

  46 “Summumque futuri iudicii praeiudicium est” Apologeticum 39,4:CC 1.150. On avoiding all contact with heretics, see Ign. Smyr. 7,2; Trall. 7,2; and Iren. adv.haer. 1,16,3.

  47 Hippol. trad.apost. 2,22,5 and 2,18,1-3. On the exclusion of sinners from prayers, see Orig. c.Cels. 4,27; in Matt. 89; Cypr. de laps. 15–25.

  48 This document was probably written by a Jewish Christian bishop for a community in North Syria sometime during the third century. Quotations in the text are from the translation provided by R. H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1929). It seems to be a serious oversight on the part
of most commentators and historians of monastic rules when they fail to consider this work. Connolly, p. xix, believes it was translated into Latin during the age of Ambrose. If that is so, it is very probable that St. Benedict was acquainted with the work.

  49 See Didasc.apost. 26.

  50 Ibid., 10; Connolly 102–103.

  51 Ibid., 5; Connolly 38.

  52 Ibid., 18; Connolly 158–159.

  53 Ibid., 10; Connolly 103–104.

  54 See Introduction, pp. 1–41.

  55 “vel plagis emendantur, vel expulsione purgantur” (Cassian. inst. 4,16,3).

  56 Certainly this is not to be construed to mean “to the point of death” except as an expression that approximates the Americanism “to beat the living daylights out of someone.” Perhaps a definite number of blows is foreseen in this expression. The Synod of Mâcon in 583 (canon 3) prescribed “uno minus de quadraginta ictus accipere” (Deut 25:3; 2 Cor 11:24) for a young cleric who appeals a case to a civil judge. See Vogel, La discipline, p. 173.

  57 Sapiens medicus: RB 27.2 and 28.2. Though Jesus is associated with the concept of physician in the Gospels (Matt 9:12; Mark 2:17), the expression being investigated here probably stems from Origen’s polemic in Contra Celsum against the pagan cult to Asclepius, “Savior and Healer.” To this is contrasted Christus medictis. By Augustine’s time, the expression has lost its polemic character. See R. Arbesmann “The Concept of ‘Christus medicus’ in St. Augustine” Traditio 10 (1954) 3–6.

  58 The penitential practice of fasting replaces beatings in some monastic rules. The Regula Ferioli, ascribed to Bishop Ferreolus of Uzés in southern France († 581), prescribes fasts in all cases except thievery, which it calls “quasi adulterium secundum.” See G. Holzherr, Regula Ferioli: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschiehte und zur Sinndeutung der Benediktinerregel (Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag 1961) pp. 129–130.

  59 See Vogel, La discipline, pp. 55-57.

  60 B. Steidle, Die Regel St. Benedikts (Beuron: Herder 1952; English tr. Holy Cross Abbey 1967) pp. 203f., gives a number of examples of corporal punishment from various monastic traditions.

  61 Apparently because of the vicissitudes of the Church in Rome and Italy during the barbarian invasions, much documented material was irretrievably lost, leaving a hiatus that has frustrated historians ever since.

  62 This list is basically the one given by de Vogüé, 5.773–774.

  63 “extraordinaria, ac furtiva cibi refectio.” Cassian. inst. 4,16.

  64 Ibid., 4,18; 5,20.

  65 This is not to ignore the promotion of monasticism by such prominent ecclesiastical figures as Athanasius, Basil the Great and Gregory I. But the fundamental origins of monasticism, including Benedictine monasticism, lie beyond the immediate direction of and incorporation into the Church’s hierarchy.

  66 See de Vogüé, 6.1381. Such letters have their origins in 2 Cor 3:1 and Rom 16:1. But as a standard form and practice, they begin with Cyprian’s time and become common for Christian travelers of the fourth century and for some time thereafter. See Elert, Abendmahl, pp. 108–112; L. Hertling “Communio und Primat” Una Saneta 17 (1962; orig. Miscellanea historiae pontificae 7, Rome 1943) 102–106.

  67 This is the judgment of de Vogüé, 5.777–785, which we accept here.

  68 Ibid.

  69 “Amend” in the sense of imposed correction or penalty is the result of the probable influence of St. Augustine on the RB; for, in reg.serv. 11,119, he speaks of gravius emendatur in regard to one who has committed a fault without admitting it but is still found out. See de Vogüé, 5.826.

  70 Cf. RB 21.5; 23.3; 28; 32.5; 33.8; 43.7,9, 15-16; 48.20; 62.9-10; 65.19.

  71 See de Vogüé, 7.263.

  72 See Perfectae Caritatis, n.2; A. Flannery, Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press 1975) p. 612.

  Appendix 5

  Monastic Formation and Profession

  Four chapters of the Rule, 58–61, treat of the process of receiving new members into the community. The first of these chapters is the most important: it deals with what may be considered the normal case, that of an adult lay postulant. The other chapters provide for three exceptional cases: those of children (59), priests (60), and men who are already monks (61). The recruitment and formation of new members were regulated by most monastic legislators. The provisions of the Rule grew out of previous monastic teaching and experience.

  Formation and profession before St. Benedict

  A man’s intention to live as a monk was the result of a personal decision. In earliest times one could simply go to the desert and assume a monastic mode of life. Each monk sought out an elder who clothed him in the monastic habit and taught him how to conduct his life. There was no established pattern of formation, and the profession of the monastic way of life was sufficiently indicated by assuming the habit.

  It was natural that cenobitic monasteries should develop more formal procedures for admission: experience gradually revealed the importance of careful testing of candidates as well as of instruction. These two necessities gradually brought about a longer period of time allowed for admission and formation. The candidate’s motivation was tested first, and he was admitted only when there was reasonable certainty about his sincerity. Then he had to be taught all the things he would need to know in order to share the community’s life, and be trained in virtuous conduct. At first this instruction was given after admission to the community.

  The Pachomian rule specifies that before admission “he shall not be free to come in, but first it shall be reported to the father of the monastery, and for a few days he shall stay outside, in front of the door” (Pachom. reg. praecepta 49). During these days careful inquiry was made to learn whether the person might be a criminal or a slave fleeing out of fear. He was also tested to determine “whether he is able to renounce his parents and despise his property” (ibid).

  In the Pachomian houses, most of the instruction was given after admission. The Pachomians accepted pagan candidates who remained catechumens until they were baptized at the following Easter celebration.1 They were in need of instruction in the most elementary truths of the Christian faith and norms of behavior (Vita sa10). Whether pagan or Christian, moreover, they had to be taught the discipline and customs of the house (Pachom. reg. praecepta 49) and the psalms and biblical readings needed for the liturgy (ibid. 139). If illiterate, they had to learn how to read; the minimum that each monk had to memorize was the psalter and the New Testament (ibid. 139-140).

  Other monastic sources confirm these practices of Egyptian cenobitism. Cassian says that in Egypt one who sought entrance was not admitted until he had spent “ten days or more” outside to prove his sincerity and perseverance, as well as his humility and patience. Meanwhile insults and reproaches were directed at him to try his constancy (Cassian. inst. 4,3). In his two accounts of Pinufius’ attempt to enter a Pachomian monastery, he says that the elder was kept waiting outside the gate “for a rather long time” (diutius, Cassian. inst. 4,30) or, in the second account, “for many days” (multis diebus; Cassian. conl. 20,1). Palladius’ story of Macarius the Alexandrian’s attempt to enter Tabennesi is similar: he is rebuffed and made to wait, finally being admitted on the seventh day (Pallad. hist.laus. 18,12-13). Sulpicius Severus, without mentioning a specific length of time, likewise says that postulants were admitted by the abbot only after being tried and proved (Sulpic.Sever. dial. 1,17).

  St. Basil is also basically in agreement with this procedure, though he says nothing of the lapse of time involved in acceptance and formation. He believes that the motives of a postulant must be carefully tested. If he willingly does the manual work assigned him, displays a disciplined behavior and readily admits his faults, these are favorable signs and he may be received. But before he is introduced into the community, he should be given some menial and humiliating tasks as a test of his resolve (Basil. reg. 6). Augustine’s Regula ad servos Dei, On the other hand says nothing at
all about the acceptance and formation of candidates.

  After this preliminary period of testing, it was the Egyptian practice to clothe the candidate in the monastic habit as soon as he was accepted. This was the practice of the anchorites, and thus Pachomius began his monastic career: after Palamon had told him all the reasons why he would be unable to endure his way of life, he finally gave in to his entreaties, opened the door to admit him, and clothed him in the schema, or monk’s habit (Vita prima 6). Later, when postulants came to Pachomius, he tested their worthiness, then clothed them in the habit and admitted them to the community (ibid. 24; Vita bo 23). This became the practice in Pachomian monasteries (Pachom. reg. praecepta 49). The change of clothing symbolized, as for the anchorites, the monk’s resolve to change his whole way of life and sense of values—in short, to undergo conversion.2

  The only requirement, then, for receiving the habit was the brief test of motivation, to be sure that the candidate was sincere in seeking conversion, and the instruction, which was apparently also brief. Cassian also speaks of conferring the habit immediately after the short period of testing: “Brought into the assembly of the brothers, there in the midst he is stripped of his own clothes and by the hand of the abbot is garbed in those of the monastery” (Cassian. inst. 4,5). For Cassian, this rite symbolizes the renunciation of all worldly possessions, even the monk’s clothing, and the complete detachment from ownership. The uniform habit is also a sign of poverty for St. Basil, but he does not say at what point it was conferred (Basil. reg. 11).