The third criterion is eagerness for trials (opprobia). The term is never used elsewhere in the RB or the RM, except twice in biblical citations (RB Prol.27; 7.52; RM Ths. 23; 10.69). What does it mean here? De Vogüé has suggested that the RB is here dependent upon St. Basil (Basil. reg. 6-7), where the terms opus Dei and opprobrium occur and there is also insistence upon obedience.19 The opprobria in the Basilian context are not insults or injuries, but humble tasks, “laborious jobs that people in the world consider humiliating” (ibid. 6). It may be recalled that Cassian also assigned the novice to the guesthouse, to perform humble services by which he might learn humility and patience (Cassian. inst. 4,7). Therefore, this criterion seems to be one of humility. The novice must be willing to show that he is not above doing things that are unattractive and unpleasant, the kinds of things that were left for slaves in the ancient world.
The RB does not envision “fictitious humiliations,” devised to test the novice’s endurance; but the opprobria certainly do not exclude bearing insult and injury when these arise spontaneously, nor the acceptance of correction when it is needed.20 The Work of God, obedience and the acceptance of humiliation correspond strikingly to the degrees of humility in chapter 7: the Work of God to the first degree, obedience to degrees 2-4, and humiliation to degrees 5-7.21 In that way the novice is expected to grow in that spiritual program which marks the monk’s ascent to charity.
Monastic profession according to the RB
For St. Benedict, the act of profession is of decisive importance. It comes at the end of the complete process of testing and formation that has been described, and it binds the monk for life. The decision so to bind himself is an exercise of the monk’s free choice; he has had leisure to reflect and has been free either to stay or to leave (58.16). But from the moment he makes profession he will have voluntarily limited his freedom by agreeing no more “to leave the monastery, nor to shake from his neck the yoke of the rule” (58.15-16). The importance of profession is underlined by the fact that the Rule provides an unusual wealth of detail about the rite.22
From earliest times the symbol of “conversion,” of becoming a monk, was the reception of the habit, which publicly indicated an intention of living the life of a monk. While some simply assumed the habit themselves, it was usually given by a person who was already a monk, as St. Gregory relates of St. Benedict (Greg. dial. 2,1). The assumption of the habit did not necessarily involve a lifelong obligation to remain in the monastic life. The Pachomian rule prescribes the clothing, after the testing and instruction of the candidate, in this way: “Then they shall strip him of his secular clothes and clothe him in the habit of monks; and he shall be entrusted to the porter, who, at the time of prayer, is to bring him before all the brothers, and he shall sit in the place assigned to him” (Pachom. reg. praecepta 49).
It is not entirely clear whether this clothing constituted a profession rite. The use of the plural (“they shall … clothe him”) indicates that it was not simply a private conferral of the habit. On the other hand, the postulant is brought into the community only later, at the time of public prayer; this suggests that the investiture does not have the significance of making him a member of the community. The precise content and binding force of the commitment are also unclear in the Pachomian literature. Certainly the monk bound himself to follow the life of the community, and this involved the renunciation of marriage and private possessions, and the acceptance of the regime of prayer, work and silence. It is not clear, however, that these were lifelong obligations or that they were guaranteed by a vow or an oath, at least at the beginning. Such an understanding developed gradually, however, and there are some texts in the literature which suppose that a binding promise has been made to God to remain in the monastic life.23
The first known example of requiring a commitment in writing is found in Shenoute of Atripe, who governed the “White Monastery,” some distance down the Nile from the Pachomian houses, at the end of the fourth century. In many respects the mentality of Shenoute is more primitive and less evangelical than that of Pachomius. The written document, which is in the form of an oath rather than a vow, is intended to put additional pressure upon the monks to fulfill what they have promised. This is characteristic of Shenoute, who habitually made abundant use of threats and violence to control his restless flock. An element of juridical constraint is introduced by means of the written formula. The monk’s agreement is called a “covenant.”24
Cassian says nothing about a formal promise upon the monk’s entry into the community; he can later be expelled at any time, though to leave of his own accord seems to be regarded as an infidelity (Cassian. inst. 4,6). Cassian does know of a rite of investiture, however; the habit is presented by the abbot in the presence of the whole community (ibid. 4,5). The abandonment of his secular clothing is symbolic of his renunciation of all worldly property. Basil, on the other hand, provides no directives for a rite of investiture, but quite clearly prescribes a promise of virginity, which he calls professio virginitatis, propositum, and pactum, in his Small Asceticon (Basil. reg. 11). He regards this as a binding commitment and its violation as an infidelity to God. It is to be made with full freedom, and only when a person is of adult age. The Large Asceticon has further developed the prescriptions for this “profession,” adding that the “officials of the Church” (undoubtedly the bishops) are to be brought in as witnesses of the “consecration of the body” (Basil. reg.fus. 14-15; see epist. 199, canon 18; 217, canon 60; 46). There is no mention of a written promise; presumably this “profession” was made orally. It certainly involved a lifelong commitment to celibacy. This propositum contains all the essential elements of a vow.
The RM offers a rather complete description of the profession rite, and is also quite clear about the nature of the obligation assumed (RM 89). At the end of the two-month trial period, after the postulant has told the abbot of his decision to remain, the profession is held on the following day after Prime. The postulant first asks for the prayers of the abbot and community, then formally petitions for admission. The abbot’s reply clearly indicates the nature of the obligation involved: “See, brother, you are not promising anything to me, but to God and to this oratory and holy altar” (RM 89.11). A document in which the postulant has listed the possessions he is conferring upon the monastery is placed upon the altar. He then says a “responsory” taken from Ps 118(119):116 (the Suscipe), and the abbot replies with a text from Ps 67(68):29 (Confirma hoc). After everyone has given the postulant the kiss of peace, the abbot says the concluding prayers, takes the inventory from the altar and entrusts the new brother to the dean who will be his immediate superior. A year later, if he has been perfectly observant, he is tonsured and given the monastic habit (RM 90.79-81).
As with most of the admission and formation procedures, so also in regard to profession St. Benedict received the elements from his predecessors. But through some rearrangement and reinterpretation he succeeded in giving a greater coherence and simplicity to the process.
We are told nothing of the liturgical setting of profession, except that it takes place in the oratory, where there is an altar and relics of the saints (58.17-20). In a later chapter, however, in dealing with the oblation of a boy, the Rule prescribes: “At the presentation of the gifts, they wrap the document itself and the boy’s hand in the altar cloth. That is how they offer him” (59.2). If the oblation of a child took place at the offertory of a Eucharistic celebration, it is reasonable to suppose that the profession of an adult monk would also occur during Mass. Benedictine tradition has drawn this conclusion and generally prescribed that profession should take place at the offertory.25 The celebration of the Eucharist, like much else in liturgical practice, is rarely alluded to by the RB, which apparently takes contemporary practice for granted as known to its readers.
St. Benedict’s rite consists of four elements. The first is the promissio, the monk’s formal promise. Whereas in the RM it is clear that this promise is made to God,
in the RB it seems to be made rather to the abbot. This is not stated formally, but is the most natural inference from the fact that he “makes a promise … in the presence of God and his saints” (58.17-18). Strictly speaking, then, the Rule does not prescribe a vow, but rather an oath: a vow is a promise made to God, whereas an oath is made to another human being in the presence of God, who is invoked as witness. Later tradition has generally interpreted the promise as a vow.26 In practice, the distinction is not of great significance. In the early Church, the concept of vow was not yet clearly delineated and the terminology was still indeterminate. The consequences of the promissio scarcely differ from those of a vow: the monk solemnly binds himself for life (58.15-16), and infidelity to what he promises is regarded as sacrilegious: “If he ever acts otherwise, he will surely be condemned by the one he mocks” (58.18). Moreover, for the RB the abbot holds the place of Christ so realistically that to make a promise to the abbot is in effect to make it to Christ (see RB 2.2; 5.2-3; 5.15).
The content of the promissio will be discussed in the next section. We do not know exactly what form it took. It seems likely that it was cast in the form of questions and answers, both because this procedure was common in the early Church (as in the baptismal rite), and because it appears in this form in the earliest commentaries on the RB and earliest profession rituals that have survived.27 The RM, too, has a dialogue between abbot and monk. Derived perhaps from the classical Roman usage of the stipulatio to bind a person to an obligation in the presence of witnesses and create a unilateral contract, it was widely used in liturgical practice, as it still is today. Most monasteries today use the interrogation form for the promissio, and it has been adopted in the 1970 Rite of Religious Profession.
The second stage in the rite was that of the petitio, a written document in which the novice formally stated the terms of his promise. St. Benedict’s insistence on this is an important step in the development of a consciousness of the juridical character of profession. We have seen that a document was required by Shenoute of Atripe, but there is no evidence that his example had any following. In the RM there is a document called a brevis vel donatio, but it is merely an inventory of the candidate’s possessions and a deed transferring them to the monastery.28 Its purpose is to make the transfer a legal act, so that the monk cannot later lay claim to the property he has renounced; a similar concern appears in RB 58.24-25; 59.3-6. In view of this, it appears that the use of a document arose from the need of conferring legal validity and sanction upon the monk’s renunciation of property. St. Benedict has taken a notable step forward in expanding the purpose of the document; it is not merely a formal donation of property but of the monk himself. It states his promise in written juridical form, formalizing his free gift of himself to the service of God.
The Rule is not explicit about the rite of the petitio. It may be that the novice wrote it out then and there, but it seems more likely that it had been prepared in advance, as is done today, with only the signature left for the ceremony itself. The Rule does specify that he shall himself place it on the altar. This symbolizes his voluntary act of offering himself to God, whose presence is represented by the altar. Again, this shows that for St. Benedict the monk’s promise is effectively directed to God. The document remains on the altar until the end of the profession rite. Today it is commonly said that this symbolizes the union of the monk’s self-offering with the sacrifice of Christ, but there is nothing of this in the RB. It is significant that at the end it is the abbot who takes the petitio from the altar. The monk, who has given himself totally, has no more control over it, and it is effectively the abbot into whose hands he has committed himself, for God’s will is manifested through him. The petitio is to be kept in the archives as legal proof of the monk’s profession; if he ever leaves, it is not returned to him, but serves as a witness against his apostasy (RB 58.29).
The third part of the rite is the specifically religious and liturgical element of the profession; the oratio. The novice addresses himself to God in the words of Ps 118(119):116, the same text used by the RM: “Receive me, Lord, as you have promised, and I shall live; do not disappoint me in my hope.”29 It is an eloquent prayer, asking that his gift of himself may be acceptable and that God may respond to it by fulfilling the hopes of the monk. St. Benedict adds to the RM’s directive a threefold repetition of this verse, concluding with the doxology. The words tertio respondeat suggest that he means that the choir should reply three times to a threefold recitation by the novice, as is done today, i.e., six times altogether, followed by the Gloria. After the monk has prayed that his offering may be acceptable, he asks for the prayers of the monks, prostrating before each of them. There is no mention of the Confirma hoc, the sign of peace, nor the concluding prayers by the abbot, all of which are prescribed by the RM (89.25-26).
Subsequent Benedictine tradition found this simple oratio too jejune and hastened to fill the vacuum already at an early date. Smaragdus, who cites the text of the RM, prescribes the Lord’s Prayer followed by an oration (of which he provides the text) and then the kiss of peace by all (Smarag. expos. in reg., on 58.23, p. 297). The latter signifies the new monk’s acceptance into the community (RB 58.23).
The major modification of St. Benedict’s ritual, however, was the addition of the consecratio monachi at this point. Monastic profession in the West, as in Egypt of the fourth century, was an act of the monk, not a sacramental rite or act of the Church. It began to be conceived as such, however, in the East; such a rite is mentioned by St. Nilus in the fifth century and first described by Pseudo-Dionysius in the sixth (Ps-Dion. eccl.hier. 6,3).30 Some scholars have suggested that it must have been known to St. Benedict, and that he does not mention it because he took it for granted.31 There is, however, no evidence for such a view. It is first mentioned in the West by Theodore of Canter-bury in the late seventh century (Theod.Cant. can. 2); it is significant that he was an Oriental. The Eastern ceremony consisted of an epiclesis, the monk’s profession, tonsure, conferring of the habit, and kiss of peace; sometimes there was also an imposition of hands.
Theodore prescribes that the abbot shall celebrate Mass (it is supposed that he is a priest) and pronounce “the three orations” over the monk’s head. For seven days the monk shall keep his head covered with the cuculla, in imitation of the neophytes after baptism. We are not certain that this consecration was combined with the profession rite of the RB. But that step had been taken by the time of Hildemar. After the Suscipe, the novice prostrates and the others kneel. Then three Kyries and five psalms are sung, followed by a number of versicles and an oration. After the investiture the novice receives the kiss of peace from all the monks (Hild. exp.reg. p. 547); then he wears his cuculla for three days. Besides the Gallican predilection for multiplication of psalms and versicles, this rite shows the influence of baptismal symbolism: the prostration accompanied by the Miserere and De profundis symbolizes death to sin. A later medieval development that lasted until modern times had the prostrate monk covered with a funeral pall and surrounded by lighted candles.32
Both the consecratio monachi and the baptismal analogy are in themselves legitimate developments if they are kept within bounds. The modern rite of monastic profession includes the consecratory prayer, considerably simplified. Neither of the two official formulas in the 1970 Rite of Religious Profession contains an explicit mention of baptism, but it is referred to elsewhere in the rite, echoing the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen gentium n.44; Perfectae caritatis n.5). These theological and liturgical developments, however, are quite beyond the horizons of the RB.
One more step remains in the profession rite: that most ancient gesture of all, the conferring of the habit. For the RM it is a “holy” garment; the newly professed must give evidence of virtue for a whole year before he may wear it (RM 90.68-80), and the monk who leaves must give it back, lest “the garb of Christ … be carried off and be contaminated in the world” (90.84-86). St. Benedict has nothing of this perspective nor of
the tonsure that accompanies the clothing. He returns to the view of Cassian, for whom the clothing is a symbol of dispossession: the monk renounces even his own clothes and wears those of the monastery (Cassian. inst. 4,5). This is clear from the context in RB and explains the apparent interruption of verses 24-25.
These verses deal with the question of disposing of property, which has already been taken care of and really pertains to the question of the petitio. Like the RM, St. Benedict allows the monk either to confer it upon the poor or to transfer it to the monastery; Cassian would not allow the monastery to accept any of it (Cassian. inst. 4,4). This was no doubt provided for by a clause in the petitio. The RB speaks of this matter in verses 24-25 because it is related to the matter of the habit: the stripping off of the monk’s secular clothes symbolizes his renunciation of all possessions. As with Cassian and the RM, the clothes he has given up are to be kept so that if he ever leaves (Cassian speaks only of expulsion in inst. 4, 6; the RM 90.84 and RB 58.28 of voluntary departure), they may be returned to him and the habit kept in the monastery. St. Benedict is not concerned about the profanation of the “holy” habit, but wants to show that the monk has gone back on his renunciation.
This difference of outlook also explains why Benedict prescribes that investiture should accompany profession and admission to the community. Cassian did not admit the monk to a deanery until a year after investiture, whereas the Master postponed investiture until a year after profession and admission to a deanery. The RB differs from Cassian in placing the year of formation before investiture, and from the RM in not requiring the monk to prove his “holiness” before receiving the habit. Since the habit represents dispossession rather than holiness, it can be conferred as soon as the novice has renounced his property. Thus the entire ritual of profession and admission becomes more coherent. It is interesting to note, however, that a vestige remains of the earlier separation between admission and investiture. Whereas we should expect that admission to the community would come at the end of the entire rite, it is, curiously, mentioned before the habit is given: “From that very day he is to be counted as one of the community” (58.23).
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 65