The content of profession in the RB
The question remains: what precisely does the monk promise at his profession, according to the RB? What does he say in his promissio and put into writing in his petitio, and to what does it bind him?
The Rule addresses this question in 58.17, where it gives the directive: “he promises stability, conversatio morum suorum, and obedience” (promittat de stabilitate sua et conversatione morum suorum et oboedientia). This is one of a number of three-member formulas in chapter 58.33 It has frequently been understood, at least in modem times, as a list of the “three Benedictine vows.” It is thus taken to mean that the monk formally undertakes three distinct obligations, each of which is the object of a solemn promise to God. Since the Middle Ages, religious have generally promised to observe poverty, celibacy and obedience, the three “evangelical counsels,” and these have been seen as distinct promises, binding them under the virtue of religion and each having clear juridical consequences (Thom.Aq. summa theol. II-II, 186, a.6-7). Some institutes add an additional vow, expressing a particular aspect of their life (e.g., to serve the poor, to work in foreign missions). In this perspective, the “Benedictine vows” were seen as distinct obligations peculiar to the monastic life while implicitly including the three evangelical counsels.34
It is impossible, however, that the author of the RB could have understood the matter in this way. If the very nature of a vow was still unclear at his time, as we have seen, the concept of distinct “vows of religion” was still more remote. It did not develop until the speculative theological ferment of the thirteenth century prompted analysis and definition of such questions. The ancient monks promised simply to live the full monastic life as it was practiced in a particular monastery and defined by a particular rule. Sometimes there was special emphasis upon a particular feature of the life, such as virginity. The RB conceives of the monk’s obligation as embracing all that is required by the Rule.
The three-member phrase of RB 58.17, then, is not a profession formula. We do not know precisely what St. Benedict’s monks stated in their promissio and wrote in their petitio. Later the three-member phrase was often incorporated into the profession formula, though we sometimes find versions containing only two members, stability and obedience.35 The three-member formula is still used today. In the Rule, however, it is not a profession formula, but rather a rubric that is intended to describe the content of the promissio in terms of the monastic realities it encompasses. It is not a list of distinct obligations and is not exhaustive, but is simply a statement singling out some of the principal features of the monk’s promise.36 The profession consisted of a promise to live the entire life prescribed by the Rule. That life is specified, but not exclusively, by the three elements mentioned. Their content is not necessarily mutually exclusive, since they are not perceived as distinct obligations.
Much discussion has been devoted by recent Benedictine writers to the precise meaning of stabilitas, conversatio morum suorum, and oboedientia. Often the discussion has been colored by the assumption that the three elements represent three distinct “Benedictine vows.” Once this supposition is dismissed, the question becomes at once clearer and less urgent, for there is no real doubt about what the monk promised: the full observance of monastic life as defined by the Rule. Nevertheless, the meaning of the threefold rubric still needs to be elucidated.37
Of the three aspects of the monk s commitment, the one whose meaning is clearest is obedience. It had long been an important element in the monastic tradition, though the conception of it differed at various times and places.38 For Cassian, it is the specific virtue of cenobites (Cassian. inst. 4,10,23-31; conl. 19,6). St. Benedict devotes chapter 5 of the Rule to obedience, as well as degrees 2-4 of the ladder of humility in chapter 7. In these passages he is dependent upon the RM, though he qualifies the teaching of the Master, and also drastically abbreviates it.39 His own contribution appears in several passages that are proper to the RB (Prol.2-3; 68; 71; 72.6). As we have seen, obedience is also one of his three criteria for the acceptance of a novice (58.7).
The most controverted of the three elements is the concept of conversatio morum suorum. This grammatically difficult phrase appears to be an idiomatic expression that was no doubt clear to St. Benedict’s contemporaries. In later times, however, it was no longer understood, and copyists changed it to the easier formula conversio morum suorum.40 The correct reading was first restored by Cuthbert Butler in his critical edition of 1912, and the modern discussion of the meaning of the phrase dates from that time. The phrase conversio morum presents no difficulty; it means a ‘conversion of one’s behavior, the abandonment of secular habits and adherence to monastic practice. The term conversatio, ‘way of life,’ in itself is likewise quite normal; it is often used in Christian literature to translate the Greek askēsis and hence can mean ‘the ascetic life’ or ‘the monastic life.’ St. Benedict uses it in this sense nine other times in the Rule. Thus he writes: “Do not grant newcomers to the monastic life (ad conversationem) an easy entry” (58.1). The combination with morum suorum, however, is difficult. What can be the meaning of “the way of life of his behavior” or “the monastic life of his behavior”?
A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed. Here we cannot detail the many intricacies of the question or the nuances introduced by the scholars who have studied it. We shall merely describe the general types of solution proposed and refer the reader to the appropriate literature for the details. The solutions can be divided into three general classes.
First, one group holds, though for different reasons, that conversatio in this context is equivalent to conversio. This has been argued on the basis that it was traditionally understood in this sense.41 From a philological viewpoint, it has been explained that, in addition to the noun conversatio derived from conversari, there is another conversatio derived from the verb conversare, a frequentative of convertere; this second conversatio means the same thing as conversio and is the word used in RB 58.17.42 It has been forcefully argued by Hoppenbrouwers, however, that this meaning of conversatio is very rare and seems to have been confined to translation language; it is unlikely that an ordinary late Latin writer would have chosen it instead of conversio.43 Finally, it has been suggested that the use of conversatio in the RB is quite simply a mistake for conversio : the scribe who wrote the archetype (St. Benedict’s secretary?) was incompetent and careless and often confused similar words.44 Where the RM has conversio in 1.3, the RB has conversatio, with no apparent reason for the change. This is the only one of the ten occurrences of conversatio in the RB that has an exact parallel in the RM,45 which in fact never uses the term. However, since the RB uses it eight other times in proper passages, in a perfectly correct way, it is surely arbitrary to hold that all of these occurrences are due to error. At the very least, the scribe must have been unusually consistent in his carelessness! An attempt to equate conversatio with conversio is based upon insufficient evidence.
A second approach was suggested by Odo Lottin of Mont-César.46 Rather than deriving the meaning of the phrase from grammatical analysis and contemporary usage, he looked to the context of the Rule itself. Lottin compared the profession formula to the three types of monks mentioned alongside the cenobites in RB 1, and suggested it was meant to eliminate them from the cenobitic program. Since stability distinguishes the cenobite from the gyrovague and obedience distinguishes him from the sarabaite, it seems likely that conversatio morum suorum was meant to distinguish him from the hermit. It is true that conversatio can have a social meaning (‘life together with,’ ‘association with’); hence Lottin concluded that the phrase means ‘life in community’ in RB 58.17. But the term in itself never means that without some qualifier identifying the associates, and the morum suorum not only fails to fulfill this function, but also becomes unintelligible. Moreover, this hypothesis requires the unlikely supposition that the Rule is opposed to a monk’s passage to the desert.47
A
third type of solution holds that conversatio is a term quite distinct from conversio and means ‘way of life,’ ‘behavior’; in a monastic context it can mean ‘the monastic life.’ The promise is general, not specific; the novice simply commits himself to follow the way of life observed in the monastery, with all that it entails. Various scholars have arrived at this conclusion in different ways and have suggested various translations. Rothenhäusler, in a second opinion, held that it means ‘the conduct of his behavior’;48 Butler thought it was untranslatable but equivalent to something like ‘the conduct of one’s life’;49 Chapman suggested ‘monasticity’;50 McCann proposed ‘self-discipline’;51 Würmseer, ‘disciplining of his behavior’;52 Friedrich, ‘exercise of monastic behavior.’53
What was lacking to these opinions was any satisfactory philological explanation of the phrase. This was provided by Steidle, who argued convincingly that it is a case of the “genitive of identity” or “epexegetical genitive,” which is common in low Latin and in the RB itself.54 In this usage two nouns that are synonymous are linked together by placing one of them in the genitive instead of joining them with a conjunction. Thus factorum nostrorum opera (RB 7.28) does not mean the actions of our deeds’ but rather ‘our actions and deeds’ or simply ‘our deeds.’ Likewise supplicatio litaniae (RB 9.10) should not be translated ‘the petitionary prayer of the litany,’ but ‘the petitionary prayer that is the litany’ or simply ‘the litany.’ It is equivalent to supplicatio seu litania.55
Applied to the phrase conversatio mortim suorum, this explanation permits us to treat it as equivalent to de conversatione et moribus suis and to translate it as ‘about his manner of life and moral conduct’ or ‘about his manner of life, that is to say, his moral conduct.’ Conversatio and mores are here considered synonyms. Neither has a specifically monastic meaning in itself (though conversatio can have such a meaning), but in the context, of course, the “behavior” or “manner of life” in question is that required in the monastery. Hence it is a general promise to live the life that the Rule and the abbot specify in that particular monastery. Hoppenbrouwers has supported this interpretation by a thorough analysis of the range of meanings of conversatio, and has produced a number of examples of its use in the same way, with mores, vita or actus as a synonym joined to it either by a conjunction or by a genitive of identity. Thus Cyprian writes de conversatione et moribus suis (Cypr. epist. 4,3; 62,3), ‘concerning their manner of life and behavior’ or ‘concerning their moral behavior,’ whereas Maximus of Turin says the same thing with the genitive: morum conversatio, morum nostrorum alacrem conversationem (Max.Tur. sermo 27,42; 70,28).56 In the light of this background, it is highly probable that the phrase of RB 58.17 directs the novice to make a promise “concerning his moral behavior.”57
There remains the question of stability.58 The RB uses this term in four other places (4.78; 58.9; 60.9; 61.5), and it appears seven times in the RM. The latter also uses firmitas three times as a synonym. It can be deduced from both rules that the basic meaning of the concept of stability is perseverance. One passage of the RB mentions stability and perseverance together as equivalent ideas: “If he promises perseverance in his stability . . .” (58.9), si promiserit de stabilitate sua perseverantia.59 The RM supports the identification of the two terms in a passage that reads: “If they choose stability as a pleasing discipline … and wish to commit themselves to perseverance …” (89.1); surely the two phrases are saying the same thing.
It has often been said that the introduction of stability was one of St. Benedict s major contributions to the development of Western monasticism. The idea, however, was hardly new to him. It is equally required by the RM and other sixth-century rules, and is at least implicit already in Egyptian cenobitism. In fact, the insistence in the Apophthegmata on “staying in the cell” shows that the spiritual content of the concept is very ancient. It is true that exile and wandering as ascetical practices were widely accepted. They sometimes led to abuse, but not all wandering monks were unworthy. Bishops and councils tried to regulate the practice, and it may be that in the sixth century, because of the social upheavals of the times, wandering monks had a deservedly bad reputation. The Rule does not condemn all monachi peregrini (see RB 61), but requires its own monks to remain in the coenobium except for necessary journeys (RB 50-51; 67). It condemns gyrovagi, who are by definition bad monks, but it equally disapproves of sarabaites, who do stay in one place but do not live as monks should, since they do not obey an abbot or a rule.
To avoid these pitfalls, Benedict requires that the monk “observe his [Christ’s] teaching in the monastery until death” (Prol.50). It is not simply a question of remaining physically in the coenobium throughout life, but of persevering in living the monastic life there, in accepting the doctrina and conforming one’s behavior to it. The later distinction between stabilitas loci and stabilitas cordis represents the view of the RB accurately, even if these terms are not found in it. The idea is there equivalently, at the conclusion of chapter 4, where the tools of good works (the RM calls them tools of the ars sancta) are said to be employed in that “workshop” which is “the enclosure of the monastery and stability in the community” (4.78). The claustrum monasterii means actual physical presence in the coenobium, whereas stabilitas in congregatione means to persevere in living the cenobitic life as it is followed in that community, observing poverty, silence and humility, and joining in the daily round of prayer and work. Above all, it is perseverance in obedience, for this is the primary characteristic of the cenobite. The two elements go together: the place and the life that goes on there; and stability includes both.
Whatever legal distinctions may have been introduced later, St. Benedict’s notion of stability is not satisfied by a purely juridical bond to a monastery; one cannot live the life of a coenobium unless one stays there and submits in obedience to its regime.60 On the other hand, passage to another monastery or to the eremitical life is not condemned by the RB. The former is not mentioned at all,61 while the latter is referred to in such a traditional way in chapter 1 that St. Benedict’s view of it can scarcely have been different than that of Cassian, for whom the coenobium is, in principle, the apprenticeship for the desert.
We can now examine the formula of 58.17 as a whole. We may first note that two of the three elements contained in it have already been mentioned in the two promises that precede profession. At the beginning (or end) of the two-month period, the novice promises “perseverance in his stability” (58.9), whereupon the Rule is read to him. After twelve months, he promises “to observe everything and to obey every command given him” and never “to shake from his neck the yoke of the rule” (58.14-15). The first promise is one of stability, the second one of obedience, and both explicitly refer to the Rule. Obviously, these are not two separate and distinct obligations. Stability adds to obedience the element of perseverance in it, as well as connoting the cenobitic context and specific place in which that obedience is normally to be rendered.
The third and most important promise, that which constitutes profession, is described by the mention of these two elements, together with a third, conversatio morum. This last is the most general of the three. The monk makes a promise that concerns his “moral conduct or behavior,” that is to say, he promises to live the kind of life followed in the monastery that he proposes to enter and that is specified by the Rule that has been read to him three times. More specifically, this life is one of obedience, for it is determined by the traditional observances laid down by the Rule and by the teaching and directives of the abbot, which apply the Gospel and the Rule to the details of everyday life. Finally, he is to live out this obedience in the context of his own coenobium, persevering in that obedience in this same place and with this same community, following its observances. The promise is binding for life (Prol.50; 58.15-16).
While the RM does not have this three-member description of the promise, it has an equivalent formula, comparison with which bears out this interpret
ation: “I want to serve God, by the discipline of the rule that has been read to me, in your monastery” (RM 89.7). For the RM, this is the actual text the novice is to say in the profession rite, i.e., his promissio. It too consists of three parts: one is general (service of God), the other two are more specific and define the means by which the first is to be brought about. These are the rule and the monastery. The correspondence with the RB is quite striking: the service of God is parallel to conversatio morum suorum; obedience to the rule; stability to the monastery.62 These two authors conceive of the monastic life in such a similar way that their respective statements of the promises by which a monk binds himself to it have substantially the same content. Both have in mind a monastic form of the Christian communal life that consists in obedience to a rule and an abbot, and that is to be followed perseveringly until death in the same monastery.
____________________
1 This is demonstrated from the texts by A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien au quatrième siècle, StA 57 (Rome: Herder 1968) pp. 198–206.
2 P. Oppenheim “Die religiöse Bedeutung des Mönchskleides im christlichen Altertum” BM 14 (1932) 268–272; Symbolik und religiöse Wertung des Mönchskleides im christlichen Altertum (Münster: Aschendorff 1932).
3 This sacramental meaning of the habit has been restored by the new rite of religious profession approved by Pope Paul VI in 1970: “The rite of first profession provides for the presentation of the habit and other signs of religious life, following the very ancient custom of giving the habit at the end of the period of probation; for the habit is a sign of consecration.” The Rite of Religious Profession (Washington, D.C.: USCC 1971) intro. n.5; see Perfectae caritatis n.17. This meaning had been long obscured by the practice, sanctioned by canon 553, of giving the habit to novices, although the RB prescribes that investiture should occur at profession.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 66