MONASTIC TOPICS IN GENERAL
|
|||
THE ABBATIAL OFFICE IN CENOBITIC LIFE
[1]
During the last three years the practice of daily concelebration
has become standard practice in most monasteries. In many places
this has presented a problem: should the abbot preside at this
concelebration or should it be left to the hebdomadary? The few
surveys that have been made show that already there is a wide
variety of solutions to the question. In some places the abbot
either presides daily or else he does not celebrate at all. Elsewhere
he simply joins with the other concelebrants, allowing the hebdomadary
to preside. Or again, as a sort of compromise, he may share the
presidential function with the hebdomadary. But what is really
significant in all this is that the differences in practice stem
from still more profound differences in the way the abbatial function
itself is conceived. For some, the abbot is, in his monastery,
what the bishop is in his diocese. As hierarchical head of a local
church, he should normally preside over the eucharistic celebration,
and it seems unfitting that he should concelebrate under the presidency
of one of his subordinates. For others, the abbot is one of a
group of brethren, designated by them to be their center of communion
and their guide in the search for God. Since his authority-as
opposed to episcopal authority-is not of the sacramental order,
it need not be emphasized in the sacramental eucharistic celebration.
Between
these two extremes there is room for many intermediary positions,
some of which may entail elements of compromise. In any case the
question is being asked: can, or cannot, the authority of the
abbot somehow be compared to that of the bishop? There is no doubt
that the abbot is the "representative of Christ," that
he is the "shepherd," and even, in a certain sense,
"charismatic." The problem is how to interpret these
expressions. The theology of the abbatial office
is obviously connected with that of the monastic community.
In other words, the understanding of the abbot's role is conditioned
by the idea of cenobitism itself. True, there is little agreement
among specialists as regards any of the questions pertaining to
the theology and history of cenobitism. Nevertheless we are not
entirely reduced to the obscurity of hypotheses in the matter.
Hence it is necessary to take into consideration some of the material
brought to light in recent years and to use it in judging certain
theories current in the monastic world and which underlie some
of the practices mentioned above. Even though the immediate object
of this study is the place of the abbot in concelebration, it
is clear that the same problem of presidency arises in any liturgical
celebration of the monastic community. Is it the abbot who should
give the homily? Should the abbot or the hebdomadary preside at
the divine office? What is to be thought of the use of the pontificalia?
The answers to these questions and others like them depend on
the theology of the abbatial office and the monastic community. Father Chenu recently remarked that
the theology of the Church must be discovered in its history.
[1]
The same can be said of that form of the Christian
life which is the monastic life. Consequently, in the first part
of this article I will study the origin and evolution of the cenobitic
abbatial office both in the East and in the West, formulating
the theology of this history and indicating its liturgical implications.
In the second part I will analyze the various
theological interpretations given these data up to the present time, and finally draw out certain conclusions
of my own.
PART I: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE CENOBITIC ABBATIAL OFFICE
At one time scholars tended to trace
the evolution of monasticism in a direct line from the eremitic
to the cenobitic form. According to this view the first hermits
retired to the Egyptian desert after the peace settlement of Constantine
in order to flee from the "established" Church. Then,
gradually drawing together around charismatic spiritual fathers,
they formed the first semi-eremitic groups. Pakhomius then organized
them into an embryonic form of cenobitism which was finally perfected
by Basil.
[2]
Unfortunately such a reconstruction is too
simple to correspond to the facts. The historical reality is more
complex. It is also a bit more obscure. First of all, the traditional thesis
that Egypt was the cradle of Christian monasticism
[3]
can no longer withstand even the mildest critical
assault. It now appears that under various forms monasticism arose
almost simultaneously on all sides out of the vitality of each
local church
[4]
. Quite some time before the existence of monasticism
properly so called in Egypt, there arose within the local churches
of Syria, Persia, Cappadocia and perhaps also in Africa, a form
of asceticism from which the later monastic movements took their
origin. The monastic or pre-monastic character of this ascetic
way of life has been disputed, but this amounts, by and large,
to quibbling over words.
[5]
Important conclusions regarding
the theology of the abbatial office have frequently been deduced
from the premise that cenobitism began when groups of solitaries
attached themselves to a single charismatic spiritual father.
[6]
However,
contrary to the idea which is so deeply rooted in many minds,
it was rather the eremitical life which in many places arose from
the cenobitic, and not the reverse. Therefore let us attempt a
brief sketch of this process, first in the East and then in the
West.
EASTERN CENOBITISM
Any attempt to trace the evolution
which moved Christian asceticism towards those institutional forms
which we discover in the fourth and fifth centuries uncovers two
trends which certainly interacted and influenced one another,
but which were originally distinct. The one stemmed from judaeo-Christian
encratism and led to the first communities of ascetics, whether
of the urban or desert type; the other led from the urban schools
of spiritual training to the school of the desert. It was in the judaeo-Christian churches
that there first developed the strongly ascetic tendency which
would later give birth to monasticisrn proper. In these judaeo-Christian
communities there was already a marked encratic trend. Poverty
was practiced to an uncommon degree, as well as fasting and absolute
continence, which at least for a certain time, was even required
for the reception of baptism. Arthur Vööbus has pointed out the
existence of such communities at Edessa and Osrhoene about the
year 100.
[7]
Dom Jean Gribomont has recently
shown the fully orthodox character of this encratic movement prior
to the heresies which later took on its name.
[8]
He has also noted that this movement, as described
by Vööbus, was far from being limited to the Christian communities
of Aramaic descent; according to him, the asceticism of Eustathius
of Sebaste and Basil in Cappadocia belongs to the same trend
[9]
I have already shown elsewhere
[10]
that this same Judaeo-Christian milieu gave
rise to Pakhomian asceticism in Egypt; this should be no surprise,
considering the widespread diffusion in Egypt of the encratic:
type of apocryphal literature.
[11]
THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE COVENANT
The biblical notion of the covenant
(qeiama in Syriac) was at the heart of the primitive Judaeo-Christian
spirituality in the Syrian milieu. It enjoyed a quite special
development in the fourth century through the writings of Aphrahat
and Ephrem, and documents such as the Liber Graduum and
the Acts of the Martyrs bear witness to the existence of
an institution called the "Sons and Daughters of the Covenant,"
which consisted of groups of ascetics living within various ecclesial
communities, closely linked to the sacramental and hierarchical
establishment.
[12]
It was from these groups that, in a spontaneous
and natural way, cenobitism arose in this geographical area. As
Dom Gribomont quite rightly says: "This is where we find
the most positive contribution of oriental Christianity to monastic
pre-history, and not in the eccentricities of the people who lived
on wild herbs, or the homeless anchorites determined to live like
savage beasts, or the stylites and various other prodigies of
austerity."
[13]
Vööbus, it is true, wished to show
that eremitism was the primitive form of Syrian monasticism, and
that cenobitism arrived only later (after Ephrem), that it was
not given a welcome reception and was even rejected in eremitic
circles.
[14]
But Edmund Beck has noted that the early writings
of St. Ephrem, namely those of his Nisibian period, give no evidence
of the existence of anchorites.
[15]
They are mentioned only in the works he wrote
during his stay at Edessa (364-373).
[16]
Dom Gribomont believes that the Syrian solitaries
who separated themselves from the local church during the second
half of the fourth century were influenced by Egyptian eremitism.
[17]
In any case, even admitting with
Vööbus the existence of some eremitism prior to cenobitism properly
so called, it remains very clear that Syrian cenobitism has no
historical dependence on eremitism, but is rather directly descended
from the primitive intra-ecclesial asceticism of the "Sons
and Daughters of the Covenant." Hence it seems that the most
ancient form of cenobitism sprang from the simple necessity of
communion between the members of a local church who were all practicing
an advanced degree of asceticism. The reality of this communion
is so basically constitutive of this form of cenobitism that it
is able of itself, even without a superior, to maintain the cohesion
of the group. These ascetics remained therefore, like all other
Christians, under the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of the
local hierarchy, with whom they faithfully cooperated, as Father
Olaf Hendriks has shown.
[18]
Granted, none of this has any direct
connection with the problem of the abbot's place in concelebration!
But it is of decisive importance for the theology of the cenobitic
life and consequently for the evolution of the abbatial office
which gradually emerged from within cenobitism.
BASILIAN ASCETICISM
In Cappadocia the movement from
asceticism to cenobitism properly so called was very similar to
that already seen in Syria. Very little is known of the disciples
of Eustathius of Sebaste,
[19]
but it does seem that they closely resembled
the "Covenant" group of Ephrem and Aphrahat in more
than one respect. In any case, we are better informed about Basil.
Dom Gribomont's studies regarding the history of the text of Basil's
ascetical works
[20]
have enabled him to reconstruct the evolution
of the Basilian system itself. Here, as in Syria, cenobitic life
resulted from the steady growth of fraternal communion among the
ascetics within the local church. This thoroughly evangelical
spirituality is a communitarian mystique based on the renunciation
of self-will and the total donation of self to the community of
brothers. The most beautiful literary expression of this mystique
is doubtless to be found in the De Instituto Christiano
of Gregory of Nyssa.
[21]
It is important to note that the
essence of the concept of obedience and authority in this cenobitism
is found in fraternal communion. On this subject Dom Gribomont
has written: "Obedience is defined as perfect conformity
to the commandments of God as revealed in Scripture; this is incumbent
upon all and does not imply any necessary reference to an abbot.
It finds its norm, when one is called for, in the needs and opinions
of others, and favors the advice of those who have a particular
charism for discerning the will of God."
[22]
In due time, however, the Basilian
community acquired a more definite structure, one that was more
organized. Experience itself taught the brotherhood the need for
a superior. "In these texts" (viz., of the Great
Asceticon) Dom Gribomont writes again, "we find a group
of seniors designated at times by a term which has biblical overtones,
although not in any technical sense: the participle proestós.
This term designates the superior, endowed with the charism of
being the 'eye' of the community, which is identified with the
Church. the Body of Christ. It is the superior's office to discern
the will of God for the community, not by means of any arbitrary
decision on his part which is then ratified by God and becomes
the divine will; his strict duty and function is to take cognizance
of what God requires of each member of the community."
[23]
These are significant facts. The
Basilian superior is the product of the very vitality of the community
itself. He is an element of the structure by which the community
is able to become united in order to achieve its ideal of Christian
asceticism. He does not replace the ecclesiastical authority under
whose jurisdiction the community lives. Hence, on the liturgical
and sacramental plane he is in no way distinguished from the rest
of his brothers.
PAKHOMIAN CENOBITISM
The work of Pakhomius antedates
that of Basil.
[24]
If we have treated the latter first, this is
due to the fact that it is more closely related, through Eustathius,
to the type of spirituality found in Syria. Besides, this reversal
of chronology is of no great consequence, since Basil was not
influenced by Pakhomius and the development of his thought is
original.
[25]
Even if the connections between Pakhornian
monasticism and the Syrian churches are not very close, it is
none the less true, as has already been said, that Pakhomius founded
his koinonia in a similar Judaeo-Christian spiritual context.
Just as the Syrian ascetics considered their "covenant"
as simply the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham contained
in the baptismal commitment, so, for Pakhomius, the life of the
monk is the natural outcome of his baptism. The vocation to the
koinonia is the complete carrying out of one's baptismal
promises.
[26]
Certainly there are a number of
differences between Basilian asceticism and that of Pakhomius.
The one was urban while the other was located in the Coptic villages
of Upper Egypt. Another difference stems from the fact that Basil's
pastoral position enabled him gradually to organize a number of
already existing bodies, whereas Pakhomius had to build up a group
of rough peasants into a community (koinonia). Nevertheless
the fundamental inspiration of both systems is the same: a common
endeavor in asceticism and the search for God. It is important to recognize the
originality of the Pakhomian community in comparison with the
semi-eremitical communities of Lower Egypt. These bodies of anchorites
gathered around a spiritual father already existed in Upper Egypt
in Pakhomius' time. He himself had even belonged to one such group
which was under the direction of Palamon. But we must not be misled
by this. The Pakhomian community, the koinonia, is something
quite different from these groups, and in its basic outlook and
its concept of the cenobitic ideal it much more closely resembles
Basilian spirituality. For his biographers as well as for
his disciples, Pakhomius is the "founder of the koinonia."
His claim to fame is that he is the one "by whom the cenobitic
life was founded,"
[27]
which is to say that he formed the holy koinonia
by which God "made known the apostolic life to those who
desire to imitate the apostles."
[28]
The successors of Pakhomius were very anxious
to preserve the unity of this koinonia. Horsiesius had
the courage to resign from his office as superior general of the
congregation in favor of Theodore when he realized that he was
unable to maintain this unity. And Theodore, taking over the duty
of superior, pleaded with the monks not to forget the man (Pakhomius)
by whom "this large community has become one single body
and one single spirit."
[29]
And so the specific characteristic
of the Pakhomian community is precisely the fact that it is not
merely a collection of individuals around a charismatic monk,
but a community of brethren.
[30]
This is very well expressed in one of the "precepts"
of Pakhomius: "If someone comes to the gate of the monastery
with the desire to renounce the world and join the number of
the brethren ... let him be made one of the brethren."
[31]
This koinonia, this unanimity
of hearts meant to resemble the primitive Jerusalem community,
[32]
is not a simple "fraternity," purely
"spiritual" in character. It is something concrete.
It means that each one places himself concretely and physically
at the service of all the rest. In accord with the traditional
concept of authority in the early ages of the Church, Pakhomius
considered his role as superior to be one of service,
[33]
and he was positively unyielding on this point
whenever his disciples wished to bestow some mark of favor on
him.
[34]
From the outset Pakhomius saw the essence of
monasticism in mutual service. This explains the fact that when
he was training his first disciples, he himself would perform
all the most menial tasks, asserting that "they had not yet
reached the point where they could serve one another."
[35]
It is this notion of service which explains
the Pakhomian concept of authority and obedience as well as the
actual organization of the "houses" and "monasteries." Thus Pakhomian cenobitism is not
an attempt at communal organization of the spiritual paternity
exercised in the already existing desert tradition, where everything
hung on the superior's personal decision. Just as in Cappadocia
and Syria, although in a less obvious manner, it sprang from the
example of the primitive Jerusalem community and from imitation
of the asceticism practiced within the Christian communities of
the time. It is primarily a union of brothers. The role of the
superior is highly esteemed, but it is situated within
this brotherhood and on the level of communion of life rather
than on the level of hierarchical authority. No better expression
of this could be found than the words spoken by Pakhomius on his
deathbed: "Behold, I am going to the Lord who created us
all; since he has brought us all together so that we might
do his will, you must decide together whom you wish to have
as your father."
[36]
Thus we find throughout the whole
of the ancient Christian East a universal cenobitic tradition,
distinct from the eremitic tradition; cenobitism has its own raison
d'être without further eremitical implications, and this due
to the very reality of the fraternal communion which it incarnates
and realizes. Seen in this light the abbatial function is necessary
for fostering and preserving this communion. But since it is essentially
different from that of the hierarchical pastor (the bishop), the
authority of the abbot belongs to the realm of the common search
for the will of God. The abbot's task is to aid the community
as such to discover what God wills for it. Such authority, by
its very nature, does not require any sacramental manifestation.
URBAN AND DESERT SCHOOLS OF SPIRITUALITY
Alongside this cenobitic tradition
there developed, even among hermits, a new type of monastic community
and a new form of spiritual fatherhood. This movement has no great
immediate interest for us at the moment, but it needs at least
a few words of comment if we are to achieve a better understanding
of the originality and distinctive character of cenobitism properly
so called. Paul and Antony went out into the
desert alone. But experience soon proved that whoever wished to
embrace the difficult life of the desert needed first to place
himself under apprenticeship to an experienced monk who was a
"bearer of the Spirit." This "elder" or abba
passed along basic monastic principles to his disciples and assured
their formation in the ascetical life.
[37]
In some areas this formation was marked by
a certain anti-intellectualism, while elsewhere it might take
on strong intellectual outlines; this was the case in Skete, for
example, where Ammonios, an assiduous reader of Origen, gave Evagrius
his monastic training.
[38]
The function of the spiritual father
in this desert tradition should probably be seen as analogous
to that of the didaskaloi in the early Church.
[39]
These didaskaloi (teachers) are frequently
mentioned in St. Paul's letters along with apostles, prophets,
evangelists and pastors;
[40]
they appear in other early Christian writers
as Well.
[41]
Originally they functioned in virtue of special
charisms. Later, at the end of the second and third centuries,
they held hierarchical teaching positions in the Church and prepared
the catechumens for baptism. The most famous of the church schools
in antiquity was that of Alexandria.
[42]
Pantaenus and Clement took on the running of
the school as their personal responsibility, as Justin had done
at Rome. But Origen, Clement's successor, was officially installed
as head of the school by the bishop, Demetrius, who charged him
with preparing candidates for baptism. The instruction given in this school
was not solely intellectual, but embraced the whole Christian
life. Origen probably lived with his colleagues and students a
kind of community life based on reading the Scriptures in common.
[43]
One of the most prominent experts on Origen,
Henri Crouzel, describes Origen's formative method in this way:
"Origen set about cultivating his students the way a good
farmer would work a sterile and unfruitful piece of land, clearing
it of thornbushes, pruning the neglected trees, grafting onto
the wild olive the branch taken from cultivated stock. This formation
was carried out on the moral as well as on the intellectual level.
It entailed the suppression of passions, false convictions, prejudices,
and opinions which had not been sufficiently well-formed: everything
in the soul that was blunted or spurious and that was contrary
to right reason, to the reception of the words of truth."
[44]
Thus the semi-eremitical groups
of the desert arrived there by way of the urban schools. In both
situations, the bonds which united the disciple to his master
were temporary ones. A man came in order to be formed, to place
himself under the direction of a master. Afterwards he plunged
alone into solitude, ready to become in his turn a master for
others. Some "graduated" from these schools of the desert
and advanced to positions of responsibility in the Church,
[45]
or even returned to the world.
[46]
In these schools obedience too had
a special character. It was primarily directed to an ascetic end.
The master used it to bend and even to break the self-will of
the subject. If authority was absolute, this was not the effect
of a charism in the master expressing the will of God. It was
quite simply a means accepted by the disciple who, for his own
formation, subjected himself entirely, absolutely, to an "elder."
[47]
If the latter was called "father,"
this does not imply any similarity with hierarchical authority.
It was simply the ordinary title of the teacher and catechist
at Alexandria. Clement says, "We call 'fathers' those who
have instructed us in religion."
[48]
Thus it can be seen how in the East,
Christian ascetical practice evolved through various institutional
stages. in this evolution we can distinguish two trends which
certainly may have exercised some reciprocal influence and even
at times mingled with one another, but which were originally independent.
They led to two different types of monastic groups and two distinct
forms of religious authority. The first of these movements consisted
in communion between the ascetics of a single local church. This
rapidly led to a form of asceticism properly so called, within
which, once a certain stage of organization had been realized,
the role of a superior as the center of unity in the search for
God was felt as a need. This form of cenobitism was basically
the same among the "Sons and Daughters of the Covenant"
in Syria and Persia, with Basil in Cappadocia and with Pakhomius
in the Thebaid. Just when this movement was beginning
to be institutionalized, there arose another movement which was
oriented towards individual solitude rather than community life.
Ascetics of this type retired into the wilds of the desert. But
these solitaries soon experienced the need for charismatic masters
who would assist them in their ascetic endeavors. In this way
there arose in the desert a new kind of monastic body which was
modelled after the urban schools of spiritual formation. It was necessary to mention the
existence of these two traditions since it is their fusion and
commingling which explains the particular evolution of cenobitism
and the concept of the abbatial office in the West. Nevertheless
in both these traditions the attitude towards the ecclesiastical
hierarchy is the same. At one time it was fashionable to regard
primitive monasticism as a secession from and an opposition to
the "installed" hierarchical Church.
[49]
This position was exaggerated and incorrect.
Doubtless there were skirmishes in certain places. This is an
historical fact and it was unavoidable. But on the whole, during
the third and fourth centuries the relations between monks and
hierarchy were excellent. The monks acknowledged the bishops as
their fathers, as did all other Christians.
[50]
If they made use of various biblical images
such as "pastor" or "father" to designate
their monastic superiors, they never confused the function of
these superiors with that institutional order of things whereby
the hierarchical pastors governed the Church.
THE TWO TRADITIONS COMBINED IN THE WEST
Western cenobitism was not the result
of the spontaneous burgeoning of brotherhoods within local churches,
as was the case in the East. In the majority of cases it arose
rather under the impulse of authority, that is, due to the action
of bishops or enterprising reformers. While it is possible that
a more primitive form of ascetical life did exist, although practically
nothing is known of it, it seems that Athanasius' Life
of Antony should be considered as the seed from which monasticism
developed almost everywhere in the West. This means that what
the West received from the East was primarily those elements of
monastic tradition which came from the eremitic milieu rather
than a properly cenobitic tradition. This is doubtless part of
the reason why Western monks, even though living in common, have
always maintained, at least in theory, more of an eremitical orientation
than a cenobitical one. It was this same Life of
Antony which stirred the enthusiasm of those Roman women, patricians
and friends of Jerome, who were led to live the ascetical life
of the desert in their palaces on the Aventine. At the same time
and under the same influence a monastic movement began in Gaul;
it was poorly organized and its process of evolution is impossible
to determine.
[51]
The monks it produced were extremely unstable,
living sometimes as hermits and conforming to traditions which
came from the East, and sometimes in common, living pretty much
as they pleased; one day submitting themselves to the schooling
of a renowned ascetic, and the next going on pilgrimage to the
Holy Land or to preach the gospel to the pagans. This movement
enjoyed little episcopal support until some of these monks became
bishops themselves and decided to rectify the situation. This
was done for example by Martin of Tours at Marmoutiers.
[52]
But the result was almost always the formation
of clerical communities attached to the bishop. It was necessary
to wait for the advent of Cassian for a truly Western monasticism
to appear. Africa would require a study in
itself. A number of urban communities of virgins probably existed
there even before Augustine, and perhaps even a monasticism with
oriental lineaments.
[53]
But the whole thing is very obscure. All we
know is that Augustine's monasticism was rather like that of Basil
and Pakhomius in its fundamental inspiration. The monastery was
conceived as an ecclesial cell founded on unanimity in charity.
[54]
But it was a clerical monasticism under the
immediate jurisdiction of the bishop, and so it does not throw
any light on our problem regarding the nature of the religious
superior and his function.
CASSIAN'S CENOBITISM
With Cassian everything changes-or
at least many things change, for Cassian brought about a fusion
of the cenobitic and eremitic traditions. The task of the historian
and the theologian is to discern whether this fusion resulted
in a harmonious synthesis or whether it was simply a material
juxtaposition of the two traditions. In Egypt, where he passed all of
his monastic life before settling down in Gaul, Cassian had lived
in the semi-eremitic environment of Lower Egypt.
[55]
He had doubtless visited other places, but
had never gone as far as the Thebaid, which was the center of
Pakhomian cenobitism. When he arrived in Provence he discovered
various forms of monastic life which were quite different from
what he had known in Skete, and which he had come to identify
with monastic life as such. At this juncture he discovered his
vocation to be a reformer, and was confirmed in it by Castor,
the bishop of Apt. His ideal was nothing less than a total alteration
of Western monasticism-which he severely criticised- by means
of a return to the traditions of Eastern monachism.
[56]
This is the whole scope of the Institutes and
the Conferences. Cassian was not interested in writing history
or even in giving an exact description of Eastern monasticism.
He was primarily concerned with reforming and building up the
monastic situation he found in Gaul.
[57]
In his efforts at reforming monasticism,
just as in his doctrinal disputes with Augustine, Pelagius and
Nestorius, Cassian's fundamental appeal is to "tradition."
[58]
But that has to be carefully understood! Genuine
tradition for Cassian is not what can be found in contemporary
ecclesiastical writers. It is the "authentic faith of the
ancient fathers which is maintained in its purity by their successors
down to the present day."
[59]
Convinced that the East had received this tradition
directly from the apostles, Cassian considered himself its authorized
representative in the West, and he regarded with a certain disdain
those who "have tried to describe what they have merely heard
about rather than actually experienced."
[60]
But ironically enough Cassian found himself
in a very similar situation, for although he had lived the semi-eremitic
life in Egypt and remained basically an anchorite at heart, he
now found himself by force of circumstances and Castor's request
obliged to legislate for cenobites. He extricated himself from
this dilemma simply by describing the customs and spirituality
of the semi-eremitic life of Lower Egypt, touching it up with
some cenobitic coloring and attributing it to all the monks of
Egypt and the Thebaid. Dom Julien Leroy has recently divided
Cassian's works into two categories: those which contain more
specifically cenobitic teaching and those directed primarily to
anchorites.
[61]
In a subsequent study he attempted a further
distinction of Cassian's writings into a) cenobitism as seen by
the cenobites themselves; b) cenobitism as viewed by the anchorites;
and c) cenobitism in Cassian's own thought.
[62]
These studies are very enlightening and certainly
serve to give us a better understanding of Cassian. However, such
distinctions must not be exaggerated. Whether Cassian is addressing himself to anchorites or to cenobites,
he always transmits basically the same concept of the monastic
life, although he may adapt it somewhat to the case at hand. The
few cenobitic establishments he had visited in Lower Egypt were
"monasteries" of the semi-eremitic type rather than
coenobia properly so called. What, then, really is Cassian's
concept of cenobitism? Certain texts can be found in his works,
such as the sixteenth Conference, De amicitia, in
which all the elements of monastic life are considered under the
aspect of fraternal charity. Here one almost has the impression
of reading something from Basil or Pakhomius. But only because
this conference belongs to the body of writings directed to anchorites;
Cassian's habitual way of thinking is quite otherwise. The coenobium
is primarily a school of formation: this is simply the ideal of
the urban center of spiritual training transferred to the desert.
Dom Adalbert de Vogüé sums up Cassian's concept in this way: "The
Christian and monastic society does not raise its children for
itself, as if its sole purpose were to form well-balanced members
in a harmonious social body. The educative activity of the coenobium
or of the eremitical community, like that of the Church, ultimately
serves the purpose of bringing human persons closer to the divine
Persons.... Of course it is true that the whole of monastic life
grows and increases within a communitarian framework; but it is
no less certain that this framework becomes more and more dispensable
for the individual monk as he becomes more proficient. This is
at least the normal expression of Cassian's thought, the one that
he develops most habitually."
[63]
And so Dom Leroy is perfectly correct
in writing that Cassian "presents ... a new conception of
the cenobitic life." Now we are even able to discern how
this conception came about. The fact is, it did not result from
a harmonious fusion of the eremitic and cenobitic traditions.
It is quite simply the transposition of the institutions of the
desert "school" into a framework of stable common life.
In other words, it consists of the transformation of a relationship-that
of disciple and master-which had always been, and is of its very
nature temporary, into a permanent institution. The fraternity
is no longer willed for its own sake, for its Christian and ecclesial
value, but purely as a means of formation. The superior is no
longer the center of the fraternity, the "eye of the body,"
but a teacher whose task is to instruct individual monks. The
role of spiritual father which in the East, even within cenobitism,
could be assumed by any man filled with the Holy Spirit, now tends
to be reserved to the superior. Such an institutionalization of
the charismatic role of the spiritual father entailed great dangers
which Dom de Vogüé clearly states: "When a communitarian
dimension is added to spiritual fatherhood, its very nature is
imperilled. One runs the risk of externalizing the relationships
of master and disciple, transposing them onto the social plane
and thus emptying them of their personal substance."
[64]
But an even more fundamental modification
of the abbatial concept is initiated with Cassian. Mention has
already been made of the importance he attributed to tradition,
as well as the uniformity which he claimed for the monastic tradition
in the East. As a reaction against the multiplicity of monastic
forms in Provence, Cassian wanted to impose a single formula,
the "apostolic" tradition. In his mind, it was in Egypt
that this monastic tradition which came from the apostles was
best preserved. He felt that the element which most closely united
the monks of the whole of Egypt was the exceptional uniformity
of doctrine and institutions which they maintained. The foundation
for such unity is the adherence to a single rule of life, of apostolic
origin. This rule of fife, catholica regula, is in some way the
monastic counterpart to the Creed.
[65]
Such an idea easily leads to an analogy between
monasticism and the Church. Cassian expresses himself very strongly
in describing this analogy: "Just as the Church has its dogma
and its discipline," writes Dom de Vogüé, "so, for Cassian,
monasticism also has its magisterium and its hierarchy. It is
the 'elders' who fulfill this function, in which they are the
successors of the first fathers, just as the bishops have succeeded
the apostles. No one has the right to direct others, nor even
govern his own life, unless he has first subjected himself to
this living magisterium, the sole repository of the authentic
tradition."
[66]
The assimilation of the monastic
hierarchy to the hierarchy of the Church did remain in Cassian
a very flexible comparison. Nevertheless this was shortly after
him taken up by a theorist who was to push it to its extreme logical
consequence, and create the figure of the abbotbishop. This theorist
is "the Master," whose Rule was to be the principal
source for the Regula Benedicti.
THE ABBOT-BISHOP IN THE REGULA MAGISTRI
The role played by the abbot in
his community according to the Regula Magistri has been
studied in detail by Dom de Vogüé. Let us turn to his findings
for the moment.
[67]
We have seen how plainly Cassian
likened the monastic hierarchy to the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
We also know that early monastic literature made use of various
figures of the Old and New Testaments in order to remind the superior
of his duties:
[68]
The titles of doctor, major,
abbas, pastor, etc. were applied to him, although
not rigidly. But the Master, carrying these figures to their extreme
logical limits,
[69]
arrived at an exaggerated concept of the abbatial
office, which has been formulated by Dom de Vogüé as follows:
"The Master affirms that the abbot is, like the bishop. a
'teacher,' commissioned by Christ, a successor and heir of the
apostles, endowed with the authority conferred on the apostles
and their successors by the most solemn texts of the New Testament."
[70]
The notion of community that tallies
with such a concept of the abbot is not difficult to imagine:
"How then does the Master view the monastery? Essentially
it is a school. The monastery is defined by the relationship of
disciple to master, of inferior to superior. This relationship
is conceived in a thoroughly biblical manner: the prophet, the
master of wisdom, the apostle-all of these are so many models
for the abbot. It is likewise understood in a totally ecclesiastical
manner, since the abbot is the equivalent of the bishop and the
priest."
[71]
What is the basis for this concept
of the Master? It is to be found in the interpretation he gives
to a text of St. Paul which affirms that Christ instituted in
his Church apostles, prophets and teachers. The Master, by reversing
the order of the two first categories, considered that these three
ofices have succeeded one another in time: the apostles came after
the prophets, and the teachers came after the apostles. These
"teachers" are of two kinds: the bishops and the abbots,
each within his own domain. In effect, the Master distinguishes
between two types of "houses of the Lord": churches
and monasteries. Bishops preside over the former, abbots over
the latter.
[72]
What is the source of this teaching
function of the abbot, which makes him properly speaking a legitimate
successor of the apostles? In his first book, Dom de Vogüé affirmed
that it was his in virtue of the charism proper to his role as
spiritual father. His election and abbatial blessing did nothing
more than give open cognizance to the existence of this charism.
Later on, Dom de Vogüé rejected this explanation and now considers
that this teaching function is given to the abbot by the bishop
at his abbatial blessing.
[73]
I do not intend to enter the discussion
of this interpretation, but simply to make two remarks. First,
I am not entirely convinced by the arguments on which this new
interpretation of Dom de Vogüé rests. The Master makes no allusion
to the abbatial blessing, either in his three main texts on abbatial
authority or in his initial statements about the abbot's power.
The implicit connection which Dom de Vogüé posits here remains
hypothetical. The second remark is perhaps more important. The
interpretation of the role of the abbot in the community according
to the Regula Magistri as given by Dom de Vogüé in his
earlier book, rested to a large extent on the thesis that the
abbot was a charismatic who received the function of spiritual
father directly from God. When Dom de Vogüé relinquished this
point of view one would have expected a more profound revision
of the opinions set forth in his earlier work. I will indicate later on what I
think of the author's efforts to show that the concept of the
Regula Magistri was simply the explication of material whose basis
was already present in the whole of early tradition. For the moment
suffice it to say that it was this concept which gave rise to
the idea of the abbot-pontiff, together with all the liturgical
consequences of such an idea. The theologian's task is to determine
whether this is a legitimate and meaningful evolution of doctrine,
or a case of theological confusion.
CORRECTIVES
The Master's idea was taken over
by the author of the Regula Benedicti. The Benedictus
vir of Monte Cassino, as we now know, did not write an original
composition, but rather adapted a pre-existing document which
is the Regula Magistri.
[74]
It is moreover this adaptation which best reveals
his genius, his experience and his discretion. Continuing the line of thought he
inherited from Cassian and the Master, Benedict continued to consider
the monastic community as a school in which the monks are disciples
and the abbot is teacher. But whereas the Master, in his very
long Rule, treated only the vertical relations of disciple and
master, the author of the Regula Benedicti introduced reflection
on the horizontal relations among the monks themselves.
[75]
More important still, Benedict reduced to more
moderate proportions the biblical images that the Master had exploited
so intemperately. For example, at the end of his description of
the various types of monks, a passage substantially taken from
Cassian (Conf. 18, 4-8), the Master added a long doctrinal
development on the abbot as "teacher," in which he claimed
to show from Scripture the necessity of submitting oneself to
a "teacher" representing Christ and speaking in his
name. Benedict, summing up the Master, quite simply omitted this
doctrinal development.
[76]
Such corrections by Benedict, as
well as his somewhat more "communitarian" orientation,
are certainly due in great measure to the partial acquaintance
he had with the Eastern cenobitic tradition. At the same time
he both remains within the line of thought brought to the West
by Cassian, and manages to avoid the exaggerations of the Master.
It would be the greatest disservice to his achievement to overemphasize
the absolute conceptions of the Master which no doubt are implicit
in Benedict's Rule, but which he had deliberately set aside; it
would be a still greater mistake to attempt their restoration
in Benedictine monasticism. Of the two great streams of Eastern
tradition, only one passed over into the West: the semi-eremitic
tradition of Lower Egypt, adapted in the West to a more strictly
common life. The truly cenobitic tradition, which we have seen
as fundamentally identical in the Syrian "Sons of the Covenant,"
in Basil's ascetics and the monks of Pakhomius, did not cross
the borders into the West, apart from a few later and superficial
influences. At most it permitted Benedict to bring certain correctives
to the exaggerated outloook of the Master. Western cenobitism, nourished by
an eremitical spirituality, was not to achieve to the same degree
the ideal of fraternity and communion which the Eastern cenobites
had. In the West the coenobium was not seen as a form of life
whose value depended upon the very reality of communion which
it made incarnate, but it became a "school of formation."
The superior was not a brother who served the group by maintaining
it in communion, who was the eye of the body-the one in whom the
communal effort of seeking the divine will was concentrated. He
was rather the master having disciples to form, directing them
in the name of God after the manner of the hierarchical authorities
of the Church. From here you take one more step,
and the superior is assimilated to the bishop. This step, only
suggested by Cassian, was gleefully taken by the Master. Benedict
avoided his exaggeration, but the Master's ideas remained latent
in the Western orientation of monasticism from which he drew.
The theses of the Master did not find any new theorist, at least
not until the twentieth century, but they quickly reappeared in
practice, and particularly in liturgical practice. The abbot, once considered more
or less a bishop, began to assume his insignia and liturgical
functions. The abbatial blessing gradually became an imitation
of episcopal consecration, with the consecratory formula omitted.
The end result was that the abbot became, to use an expression
à la Bouyer, "a sort of bishop, minus the Holy Spirit,
but with all a bishop's functional paraphernalia."
[77]
This Western tradition has come
down to us fundamentally unchanged, through alternative periods
of decadence and reform. At present, for the first time since
the sixth century, the monks of the West are confronted with the
duty and the pressing need to rethink in depth all of the elements
of this tradition and re-evaluate it in order to arrive at a new
understanding of its meaning. This task must be performed in the
light of the Church's whole tradition and above all in the light
of the gospel.
PART
II: THEOLOGY OF THE CENOBITIC ABBATIAL OFFICE
The historical development which
I have just sketched in broad outline includes its own theology
which must be drawn out more explicitly. Some attempts at this
have been made in various studies which I would now like to analyze
and evaluate. I will also present another study, of extreme importance,
on the theology of authority in religious life in general, and
conclude by indicating some elements of a solution which it seems
may be drawn from this essay.
CENOBITISM ACCORDING TO DOM DE VOGÜE
No one would question the fact that
an abbot should be the spiritual father of his monks rather than
simply a material administrator. Likewise all agree that he is
the head of a Christian community over which he exercises authority.
But concepts of cenobitism and of the abbatial office vary greatly
depending upon the order set up among these elements, particularly
with reference to the relations uniting the abbot and his monks. Dom de Vogüé does not hesitate in
the least: for him the abbot exists in some way above the community.
Primarily the abbot is an accomplished monk, capable of teaching
the perfect life and exercising a true spiritual fatherhood; but
since the community aspect of this fatherhood looms large. he
takes on the role of head of a church and is comparable to a bishop.
. ."
[78]
. This notion of the abbot's role
is based on a very particular concept of cenobitism: "A cenobitic
society primarily results from the sum of individual relationships
between the monks and their abbot."
[79]
"Cenobitism is thus essentially constituted
by the completely spiritual relationship of a group of individuals
to a man who represents Christ. From this primary relationship
there results a second which unites all these disciples of one
master among themselves. Hence cenobitic society primarily exists
between the monk and his abbot, that is, between the monk and
God whom he is seeking. It is an extension of the eremitical experience,
and remains essentially a life with God alone."
[80]
This concept of cenobitism, is found
in all of Dom de Vogüé's studies. It conditions, among other things,
his notion that the divine office is merely propaedeutic to solitary
prayer, or even a substitute for continual prayer. Such a vision
of cenobitism is not without a certain nobility. The problem is
to ascertain whether it is based, as the author believes, on ancient
monastic tradition; to determine this some analysis of his arguments
is needed, particularly those given in his fundamental work: La
communauté et l'abbé dans la Règle de saint Benoît. The
importance of this book is due not only to the subject matter,
but also the very great influence it seems currently to be exercising
on many monks and abbots as regards their idea of the abbatial
function and the meaning of the monastic community. Methodologically speaking, the author
continues in the direction taken by Dom. Basil Steidle
[81]
, not trying to insist on the originality of
St. Benedict, but rather attempting to set him in historical perspective,
studying him against the background of the tradition which he
both took up and passed along. Particular importance is given
to the Regula Magistri (RM): "The RM and the whole
of early cenobitic literature will be a constant point of reference
in the commentary on the text."
[82]
Anteriority of the Regula Magistri over the
Regula Benedicti is presupposed as a working hypothesis; and this
hypothesis proves very fruitful. It cannot be denied that the method
is excellent. But it is also very demanding. It presupposes a
thorough knowledge of the various cenobitic trends in the early
Church, and constant attention that their complexity not be too
simply schematized. It would seem that Dom de Vogüé did not entirely
avoid this danger. He fails to take into account the primitive
asceticism that flourished in the churches of Syria and Cappadocia,
which is so important for the history of asceticism in general
and of cenobitism in particular. Basing himself on a description
of Pakhomian cenobitism which is correct on the whole, but too
schematic, he fails to study its genesis and evolution, which
accounts for this statement at the beginning of his work: "Pakhomius
clearly seems to have originated a very strong Egyptian 'tradition'
which can easily be recognized in the cenobites described by Jerome
(Ep. 22, 35), in the Institutes of Cassian, and in the
Master and St. Benedict.... [But] the monastic ideal did not evolve
in the direction of a fuller cenobitism, and it remains, as in
the past, dominated by eremetical yearnings. It is the weakness
of men and the concern to assure a minimum of ascetic integrity
that led to the development of the common life."
[83]
Here we have Dom de Vogüé's favorite thesis;
it turns up throughout his book in a variety of ways. It constitutes,
in my opinion, an unproven assumption. First of all, the line of continuity
traced by Dom de Vogüé from Pakhomius to Benedict passing through
Cassian, poses numerous problems for the historian. There is certainly
a connection between Cassian and Benedict, but none exists between
Pakhomius and Cassian. It is an established fact that Cassian
did not know Pakhomian monasticism. In his Institutes,
he generally mentions only "the Egyptians," who were,
in the common parlance of the time, the inhabitants of the Delta
and Lower Egypt. The few texts in which he mentions the Tabennites
or the Pakhomians (who lived in the Thebaid) occur when he makes
use of the various documents in which he read about them.
[84]
These documents are either Palladius' History
regarding the Tabennites, which has nothing to do with Pakhomian
monasticisms
[85]
, or Jerome's Latin translation of the "Precepts"
of Pakhomius. Now these "precepts," improperly called
the "Rule of Pakhomius," are simply a collection of
various regulations dating from different periods, and concerned
mainly with the material organization of the monasteries. Authentic
as these texts may be, they cannot give an adequate idea of Pakhomian
spirituality. But though Cassian had no personal
contact with Pakhomian monasticism, could not this monasticism
have influenced the milieu which Cassian did know, and thus create
this Egyptian tradition spoken of by Dom de Vogüé? Nothing of
the kind took place. Contacts between Pakhomian monks and the
semi-anchorites of Lower Egypt were practically nonexistent. The
literature of Lower Egypt, particularly the Apophthegmata,
open to so many different tendencies, has assimilated nothing
of the Pakhomian literary output, which remained a homogeneous
whole.
[86]
This mutual ignorance can doubtless be explained
by Pakhomius' reservations with regard to eremitism, but is especially
due to the firm position taken by the Pakhomian monks on the patriarchs
side in the great Origenist dispute at the end of the fourth century. In the first part of this study
we have seen the originality of Pakhomian cenobitism and all that
distinguishes it from the type described by Cassian. If Dom de
Vogüé has come to the conclusion that these two very different
traditions are really quite similar, it is because he has too
readily placed his confidence in Cassian's claim to represent
the Eastern tradition, and has looked at Pakhomius only
through Cassian's eyes. For a long time it was thought that
Basil had modified Pakhomius. But Dom Gribomont demonstrated some
time ago that there is little probability of Basil's depending
on Pakhomius, and that in any case it cannot be proven. Hence,
Dom de Vogüé believes that Basilian monasticism can be considered
a sort of exception, on the fringe of the early tradition.
[87]
But if Pakhomian monasticism is studied by
means of authentic sources, one finds in it a concept of cenobitism
very similar to Basil's, as was explained above, and this despite
notable differences in the exterior organization of the common
life. Which is all the more striking if Pakhomius really did not
exercise any influence on Basil. Hence it is necessary to face the
facts. There is not just one Egyptian monastic tradition (the
eremitic) with the Basilian communities constituting a marginal
element. Rather, the East harbored a great cenobitic: tradition
which, in spite of notable differences, was fundamentally the
same and shared by the "Sons of the Covenant" in Syria,
Eustathius and Basil in Cappadocia, and Pakhomius in the Thebaid.
Alongside this cenobitic tradition, another monastic tradition,
almost as old, appeared in the deserts of Egypt, Syria and Palestine:
the eremitic tradition, which evolved into groups of solitaries
united around a single spiritual father. It was this semi-eremitic
tradition which Cassian made his own and which, through the Master,
was carried on by St. Benedict. Still, Benedict did slightly correct
this tradition by rather cautiously bringing back some elements
of true cenobitism. Where did he find them? Doubtless in Basil
- "our holy father Basil" as he calls him. Butler believed
this was a reasonable affirmation.
[88]
But Dom de Vogüé offhandedly rejects this position
by situating Basil outside the tradition which he claims can be
traced from Pakhomius straight to Benedict through Cassian and
the Master!
[89]
It does not seem then that Dom de
Vogüé's thesis, asserting that cenobitism sprang from an effort
to organize on a communal level the desert relationship of father
and son can stand up under historical criticism. What is to be
said for the notion of the abbot as charismatic father who operates
"above" the community and around whom groups of disciples
are formed? Certainly it is not an untenable position. Nevertheless.
personally I do not find it very realistic. The history of monasticism,
both past and present, seems to prove that abbots are not usually
"charismatic" men in the sense understood by Dom de
Vogüé. In any case it is a fact that at the present time those
who enter a monastery come not to subject themselves to a particular
superior, but to be united to a community of brothers whose manner
of life corresponds to their own ideal or their own vocation.
And when the time comes to choose a new superior, they choose
the one who, by his natural and supernatural endowments, is best
able to lead the community to God in peace and unity. The lengthy analysis of this thesis
has not been made in a polemical spirit. Rather it was done because
from this historical thesis the author derives his concept of
the abbot as the equal of a bishop, which he sets forth, for example,
at the end of his note on the abbot-pontiff. "Such a charism
puts the abbot in the category of the 'teachers' who rule the
people of God after the prophets and apostles. It places him alongside
the bishop, while his assistants, the deans and cellarer, become
analogous to the priests, deacons and clerics. His teaching has
to be traditional, like that of the head of a local church, since
he is the exponent of a rule which reiterates the demands of the
gospel and condenses the experience of the perfect disciples of
Christ, those who have embraced the apostolic life. In a word,
while he is not actually a bishop, he is to all intents and purposes
just like a bishop."
[90]
Such a concept would certainly justify,
and even demand, that the abbot normally preside over the liturgical
celebrations of his community. Historically, this conception was
held by the Master, but it cannot claim to be a clear expression
of the tradition which preceded it. It is rather the fruit of
logical reflection, based on the biblical figures used by Cassian.
With Benedict it seems to have been restricted to the original
meaning it had in Cassian: a simple comparison without theological
import, rather than a genuine analogy. From a theological point
of view it is hardly acceptable, as will be seen from the study
of Father Tillard, analyzed later on. HEGGLIN AND BACHTAnother author has attempted to
systematize positions similar to those of Dom de Vogüé regarding
the origins of cenobitism and the abbatial office. He is Dom Benno
Hegglin.
[91]
Though his study is a canon law thesis concerned
with the abbot's position in the current legislation of the Church,
he deals in the first section of his work with the origin of the
abbatial office and power. The author first remarks, quite
rightly, that in eremitic monasticism. the name of abbot was conferred
on charismatic monks, i.e., on those who had given visible proof
of being filled with the Holy Spirit. For this reason they could
exercise spiritual fatherhood, directing disciples in the spiritual
life by word and example. In the course of the transition to cenobitism,
the meaning and content of the word abbas doubtless changed somewhat,
but the charismatic element remained. This would mean that superiors
are called abbots because of their charismatic qualities. The
only difference between cenobitic authority and that of a superior
of hermits would lie in the fact that the latter pertains only
to the doctrinal order, whereas the former extends to all the
elements of the life. This conception obviously rests on the postulate
that eremitism preceded cenobitism and that the latter grew out
of the former. Heinrich Bacht has expressed serious
reservations regarding this thesis
[92]
. He indicates the equivocation whereby Hegglin
equates the pneumatic function of the spiritual father in the
desert with purely spiritual direction. But above all he insists
on the fact that a charism cannot be institutionalized. Finally,
he remarks that when one admits, as Hegglin did, that Pakhomius
laid down certain rules aimed at "protecting" the monks
against the abuse of authority by superiors, and that he even
instituted a council of judges to settle conflicts between superiors
and subjects, it is insufficient simply to say that all this is
"very interesting." For what we have here is the execution
of a notion of obedience quite different from that known in "the
desert."
RELIGIOUS AND HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY
To determine the theological value
of certain past or present conceptions of the abbatial office
we must take into account contemporary theological reflection,
and we are indebted to Father Tillard for a very important study
on religious authority.
[93]
By means of rigorous theological
argumentation he shows that it is necessary to distinguish within
the Church two well-defined forms of authority, hierarchical and
religious. In the course of time these two forms of authority
have so influenced one another that they have ended by becoming
almost the same, so that the relations between diocesan priests
and their bishops have become practically identified with those
existing between religious and their superiors, religious authority
taking on the juridical forms of hierarchical authority. However
we evaluate such an evolution and whether we consider it reversible
or not, the fact remains that from a theological point of view
we are confronted here with two quite different forms of authority,
which must be distinguished in terms of the particular end of
the form of society within which they are exercised. Authority
is not an absolute value; it is essentially relative to a society,
or better, to a community. Hierarchical authority is a ministry,
serving to build up the Body of Christ primarily by the administration
of the divine gifts par excellence, the word and the sacraments.
"Whether he be bishop, priest or deacon, the minister is
the 'human sacrament' through whom God himself acts here and now
on his people. If, particularly in the communal celebration of
the Memorial of the Lord, he has also the duty of being 'mediator'
through whom the prayers, offerings and thanksgiving of the entire
people ascend to the Father, nevertheless his primary and essential
place is in the movement which descends from God to men in Christ.
Even the activity by which he 'organizes' the Church so that it
can respond to its vocation in the world is caught tip in this
dynamism of the Father's agape."
[94]
Thus hierarchical authority is sacramental,
both in its origin and in the nature of its activity. By means
of this authority God himself leads his people and gives them
life. It is rooted m the divine initiative, sealed by a sacrament,
and hence always accompanied by a suitable charism. It is thus,
according to the divine plan, that the authority of the Lord Jesus
is to remain in the Church until the Parousia."
[95]
Authority in religious life is on
an entirely different plane. This stems first of all from the
nature of the religious community: "The religious community
is a cell of the Church, and as such it is radically impossible
for it to withdraw from hierarchical authority, for it lives by
the word and the sacraments and so it cannot arrogate to itself
a leader to replace or diminish the authority of those whom the
Lord himself has placed over his flock. Moreover it is not essentially
a hierarchical society, structured by the shepherd-flock relationship.
On the contrary it is essentially a brotherhood. It belongs to
the people of God and so also is built up by the leaders who serve
the people; but it is situated directly on the level of fraternal
communion which essentially defines the Church in its mysterious
being, and is determined to respond to the impulse of the Spirit
within the heart of the baptized, like a new outpouring of the
dynamism of grace.... The religious community is the brotherhood
of a small group of baptized persons who are united in order to
discover together, in a form of life determined by a definite
rule, this blossoming forth of the grace at the heart of their
being."
[96]
This point is of primary importance
for the theology of authority in the religious life. The religious
community is a brotherhood of believers living their Christian
life under the guidance of the hierarchy. If another form of authority
arises within the community, it must differ from the hierarchical
and be of another order. It should minister to the fraternal communion,
be determined by this communion, and exist for no other reason
than this. Hierarchical authority belongs to the descending movement
of the Father's grace; religious authority is situated on the
horizontal level of fraternal communion, aiding in the ascending
movement of response to grace. The essential difference between
these two kinds of authority presupposes a difference in origin.
Hierarchical authority is sacramental and charismatic power which
the bishop receives at his episcopal consecration. There is here
a personal and direct intervention of the Father, signified sacramentally
by the Church in a sacred rite in which the one chosen for office
is distinguished sacramentally from the rest of the baptized.
This distinction should normally be apparent in liturgical celebrations.
In a religious community, on the contrary, there is nothing which
sacramentally distinguishes the superior as such from the rest
of his brothers. His authority is not sacramental in origin; it
springs from the fundamental equality of all the baptized, all
brothers in Christ. This authority, like all authority on earth,
certainly comes from God. However, it is conferred on the superior
by the action of the community, requesting, by a free vote, that
one of its members be a center of unity and a guide in its search
for and accomplishment of the will of God. No sacrament is added
to this community election. The Church ordinarily requires only
the approval of a higher superior to confirm the wisdom of the
choice, and this superior's authority is not necessarily hierarchical
or sacramental. It is significant that these conclusions
of Father Tillard regarding the nature of religious authority
are in perfect accord with those at which we arrived independently,
from a study of early Eastern cenobitism. But before drawing from
this historical and theological study conclusions concerning the
abbot's place in eucharistic concelebration, it is important to
examine a number of terms and dispel certain possible ambiguities.
CHARISM
Our contemporary vocabulary has
been enriched by a fine neologism which has unfortunately been
cheapened by immoderate usage. The word is charism. In the New
Testament it frequently has a broad meaning, designating all the
gifts of God, in the first place that of the divine life in Christ
(Rom. 5, 15 ff). In this sense, every Christian is charismatic.
Other, more "specialized" charisms are connected with
the filling of a particular office among the people of God. The
most important of these charisms are those transmitted sacramentally,
by the imposition of hands (I Tim. 4, 14; 2 Tim. 1, 6); they necessarily
accompany every hierarchical office. The office of abbot does
not belong to this category of charisms which are strictly sacramental
in origin. Besides these governing charisms,
which give to the recipient the rights of commanding and teaching
and which no one should despise (I Tim. 4, there have always been
in the Church other charisms which are related, not to ministerial
functions, (apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors),
but to the activities of the community (serving, teaching. exhortation,
discernment of spirits, etc.). The anchorites of the desert, seeking
instruction and formation, gathered around certain great monks
who possessed this second kind of charism. Certain great cenobitic
abbots might also have enjoyed and exercised such charisms-along
with some of their monks-but this did not specifically define
their office. In a recent work Jean Colson distinguishes
two types of office in the Church: the first, specifically ordered
to salvation, deals with doctrine and its teaching, baptism
and worship; the ministers of such offices were always considered
to have been instituted by Christ himself. The other type concerns
the governing of the community, and was patterned after
the Jewish community structure, which set up its own officers.
[97]
It was only after some centuries that the Church
clearly distinguished charisms constituting hierarchical ministers
and those belonging to the second category. It is thus understandable
that the distinction did not appear in all clarity in monastic
literature of the fourth and fifth centuries, and that titles
and epithets belonging to the first category were still applied
to offices of the second. Confusion and doctrinal error began
when, as in the Regula Magistri for example, the application of
some of these expressions such as doctor, pastor, was pushed to
the extreme. It would certainly be wrong to return at the present
time to terminological and doctrinal imprecision which has long
been obsolete.
THE ONE WHO PRESIDES
Legitimate celebration of the eucharist
must take place in communion with the bishop. Moreover it is normal,
although not always absolutely necessary, that a liturgical celebration
should be presided over by the bishop or his representative. The
hierarchical character of a celebration does not result merely
from the fact that someone presides and that the participants
carry out various functions. When a group of laymen, monks or
not, celebrate the divine office, one of them-usually the seniorpresides.
But this presents no manifestation of the hierarchical character
of the Church or of the liturgy. The celebration takes on this
hierarchical character when it is presided over by a minister
in sacred orders (received sacramentally) corresponding to the
office which he exercises. He then presides, not by any appointment
of the assembly, but because he possesses, in virtue of his ordination,
a sacred character enabling him to preside in the name of Christ.
The special presence of Christ in him is based upon the sacramental
character. It has been said that the monastic
community is a hierarchical body and should so manifest itself
in the liturgy. Further, since the abbot presides in the refectory
and chapter there seems to be no reason why he should not preside
m the church. But these observations are highly equivocal. When
the brethren come together for some common exercise such as chapter
and meals, the ordinary demands of a harmonious common life require
that someone preside. Normally this would be the senior, hence
the superior if he is present. But nothing in this is comparable
to the hierarchical structure of the Church, based on differences
of a sacramental order, on the different modes of participating
in the priesthood of Christ. It is true that the monastic community
is a part of the Church. Its eucharistic celebration is legitimate
and valid only if it be presided over by the bishop or by some
ordained minister in communion with him. The manifestation of
the hierarchical character of the monastic community in its eucharistic
celebration resides in this alone. If a bishop participates in a liturgical
celebration, the hierarchical character of the Church and the
liturgy demands that he preside, since he belongs to a higher
sacred order. But if a group of simple priests are celebrating,
there is nothing from the liturgical and sacramental point
of view to indicate that one rather than another should preside,
no matter what their respective dignities or offices in the life
of the community. I have advisedly said that from the sacramental
and liturgical point of view nothing requires one to be preferred
to another. It is obvious that there is a certain fittingness
if, when several priests are celebrating, the senior or the one
who guides the spiritual life of the group should preside. This
fittingness is a matter of deference and does not pertain in any
way to the sacramental order. So it is not an absolute requirement
and should leave room for other considerations and give way when
it arouses certain problems. Thus when we speak of choosing someone
to preside who can fulfill this office to the edification of the
participants, we are dealing with a fittingness in the sacramental
and hence higher order. For this reason, if the abbot, owing to
bad health or age or simply a deficient voice cannot fittingly
and properly fulfill the function of president, it is fitting
that he not preside. In a community where daily concelebration
is the custom, there might be serious disadvantages, particularly
psychological ones, if the same person, even the superior, were
to preside every day. Here the fittingness of the superior's presiding
should give way, and there is nothing humiliating or degrading
in his simply taking his place among the other concelebrants.
JURISDICTION
We now come to a rather delicate
question. Someone may perhaps say: granted your historical study
and your theology; however, it remains a fact that abbots at present
are priests, and that they have jurisdiction over all the
members of their community, including the other priests. Do they
not then participate in the pastoral office of the bishop? This
is certainly a weighty argument which must be carefully considered.
The problem lies in the nature of this juridiction. Is it somehow
sacramental, or does it belong to the simply juridical order alone?
Let us see. Prior to Vatican II some theologians
and canonists divided the powers of the bishop into two categories:
the power of sanctifying by the adminstration of the sacraments,
conferred by holy orders and episcopal consecration; and the power
to teach, derived from jurisdiction given outside of the episcopal
consecration. In this perspective, the jurisdiction of the abbot
and his power to teach may well be compared to that of the bishop.
However, such a notion can no longer be considered viable after
Vatican II. The Constitution on the Church (no. 21) clearly distinguished
on the one hand between episcopal duty or office (munus)
and the powers intrinsic to it, and, on the other, the exercise
of this office, which requires juridical or canonical delegation
handed on by hierarchical authority.
[98]
Thus the episcopal function of teaching and
governing does not come from a special act of the sovereign pontiff.,
it is conferred by episcopal consecration. Consequently, one can say with Father
Lécuyer that "jurisdiction is not a power properly
speaking, but an act by which legitimate authority determines
the domain for the exercise of preexisting powers."
[99]
It thus follows that "jurisdiction can
be given to someone without his thereby receiving any new, precisely
ontological quality. This happens in society quite generally;
it is even more obviously the case in the Church whenever jurisdiction
is given to a layman: the one designated as head remains what
he was at the moment of his investiture; nothing is added but
the awareness of his new responsibility and, of course, the actual
graces which God bestows on every man for the exercise of his
duties in fife.... This is always the case when a sacrament is
not involved."
[100]
Today the abbot is a monk who, in
addition to his proper office which is to be the focal point of
a community and guide in its search for the Lord, receives from
ecclesiastical law the office of exercising over the members of
a brotherhood the powers of teaching and governing the people
of God which he has in common with all priests. His powers are
simply those of the priesthood of the second order, essentially
different from those of a bishop, successor of the apostles. From this point of view also, there
is a certain propriety, other things being equal, in the superior's
presiding when the priests over whom he has jurisdiction concelebrate.
But it is simply fitting, and not required, as it is for
the bishop. And this fittingness can be counterbalanced by certain
improprieties, or by a contrary fittingness in the sacramental
order.
CONCLUSION
Positive inquiry into tradition
and theological reflection based on notions of the Church and
of community have led us to a notable convergence of conclusions.
A monastic cenobitic community is made up of Christians who have
come together in order to live in fraternal communion the fundamental
realities of the Christian life. As Christians, they always remain
under the authority and the pastoral solicitude of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. If they choose a superior from among themselves, this
is certainly not to supplant the ecclesiastical hierarchy placed
over the Church by Christ. Rather, it is to coordinate their effort
in the search for and the accomplishment of the will of God. There
are two distinct authorities: one in the sacramental order and
divinely instituted; the other on the level of the fraternity
itself. The East possessed a fairly stable
cenobitic tradition despite the various forms it took, one in
which this theological equilibrium was perfectly maintained. Unfortunately
this tradition did not pass over to the West. Western cenobitism
was created by transposing the customs and spirituality of the
semi-eremitic groups of Egypt into a framework of common life.
As a consequence. the abbatial office in the West turned into
a permanent institution a relationship which had originally been
temporary by its very nature-that of master and disciple. And
to this was added the dimension of spiritual father. Within this Western tradition, already
carrying a heavy load of equivocations, a tendency was manifested
to liken the role of the abbot in his monastery to that of the
bishop in his diocese. This tendency was pushed to its extreme
limit in the Regula Magistri, although it could not claim
any connection with early monastic tradition and can hardly be
defended theologically. Later the Regula Benedicti was
to restore a somewhat more acceptable balance. At the present time the abbot is
almost always a priest, and has jurisdiction as well. This, however,
gives him no further sacramental power; he remains a priest of
the "second order." Therefore, unlike the bishop. there
is no inherent necessity for him to preside when concelebrating
with the members of his community, since his position as superior
has nothing to do with the sacramental order. Then too, because he is the father
of his community and has jurisdiction over its members, including
the priests, there can be a certain propriety in his presiding
at the eucharist, but this should give way whenever a higher order
demands it, or real disadvantages arise from always having the
same person preside. In practice it would seem proper for the
abbot to preside at concelebration on great feast days and at
the significant events in the life of the community. Beyond this,
it is preferable that he allow all those priests of the community
who are capable of doing so to preside in turn. Moreover, there
is not the least impropriety in having the abbot take his place
among the other concelebrants when he does not preside. Since
he is a priest of the second order like the others, there is no
"degradation," no humiliation (nor anything really worth
mentioning) in it. One might even say that it is precisely when
he refuses to concelebrate that he fails to take his proper place. In every liturgical celebration
the role of president is unique, since he especially represents
Christ. For this reason we should be quite reticent about the
practice of having in some way two presidents, the abbot reserving
to himself the role of president but "delegating" certain
of his duties to the hebdomadary. Although a better developed
theology of celebration may in time clarify the exact meaning
of presidency, it seems at the moment that this office must remain
unique. We should not yield to this remnant of the medieval tendency
to like the abbot to a bishop. After reading these notes, the reader may perhaps reflect that the author has raised more problems than he has solved. The author feels the same way. But he will have achieved his purpose if this study arouses a new effort at reflection upon these questions which touch some of the most fundamental realities of the cenobitic life.
[1] in Supplément de la Vie Spìrituelle, nº 86, sept. 1968, 351-393; idem in Liturgie (o.c.s.o.) nº 7, juillet 1968, p. 13-60. English translation in Monastic Studies, nº 6, 1968, 3-45.
[1]
M. D. Chenu, "La
théologie de l'Église dans son histoire," in La Vie
Spirituelle, 535 (1967), pp. 203-217; see p. 204.
[2]
Such
systematization was at one time commonplace. See for example W. Bousset, "Das Mönchtum der sketischen Wüste,"
in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 42 (1923),
pp. 1-41.
[3]
For an example of this traditional position, see J.
Vergote, "L'Egypte, berceau du monachisme chrétien,"
in Chronique d'Égypte, 34 (1942), pp 329-345.
[4]
Cf. J. Gribomont, "L'influence du monachisme
oriental sur Sulpice Sévère," in Saint Martin et son
temps, Studia Anselmiana, 46 (Rome, 1961), p. 136; idem,
"Le monachisme au sein de l'Église en Syrie et en Cappadoce,"
in Studia Monastica, 7 (1965), pp. 7-24.
[5]
Regarding this problem see E. Beck, "Asketentum
und Mönchtum bei Ehpräm," in Il monachesimo orientale,
Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 153 (Rome, 1958), pp. 341-362;
idem, "Ein Beitrag zur Terminologie des ältesten
syrischen Mönchtums," in Antonius Magnus Eremita,
Studia Anselmiana, 38 (Rome 1956), pp. 254-267
[6]
This
refers particularly to the thesis of Dom Adalbert de Vogüé,
which will be treated further on.
[7]
Throughout this study reference will be made more than once to the
fundamental work of A. Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the
Syrian Orient, 2 vols., (Louvain, 1958 and 1960).
[8]
J. Gribomont, "Le monachisme an sein de
l'Eglise en Syrie et en Cappadoce," in Studia Monastica,
7 (1965), pp. 7-24, especially pp. 12-16.
[9]
Ibid., pp. 18-24. See also the interesting
notes by M. Aubineau in his edition of Gregory of Nyssa's De
virginitate, Sources Chrétiennes, 119 (Paris, 1966), pp.
534-541.
[10]
Cf. A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme
pachômien au IVe siècle, mimeographed thesis (Rome, 1967).
This work is soon to be published
in the series Studia Anselmiana.
[11]
The
Gospel according to the Egyptians,
written with markedly encratic tendencies, is quoted several
times for example in Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, III, 6,
45; 13, 92. These fragments
were asembled by E. Preuschen in Die Reste der ausserkannonischen
Evangelien und urchristlichen Überlieferungen, 4th ed. (Giessen,
1905), pp. 2-3. See also M. Roncaglia, Histoire de l'Eglise
copte (Dar Al-Kalima, 1966), vol. I, pp. 65-109. Although G. Quispel put forward the thesis that the encratic source
of the Gospel according to Thomas can be identified with
the Gospel of the Egyptians, the same author claims that
Alexandria is the home of the Judaeo-Christian basis and the
Judaeo-Hellenistic background presupposed in Thomas.
Cf G. Quispel, "L'Évangile selon Thomas et les origines de l'ascèse chrétienne,"
in Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme, Colloque de Strasbourg,
23-25 avril, 1964 (Paris, 1965), pp. 48-49.
[12]
Cf.
A. Vööbus, the work cited in note 7, vol. I, pp. 97-103 and
vol. 2, pp. 331-342. Idem, "The institution of the
Benat Qeiama and Benat Qeiama in the Ancient Syrian Church,"
in Church History, 30 (1961), pp. 19-27. On this question
see also the works referred to by Dom J. Gribomont in the article
cited in note 8 above.
[13]
See
the article cited in note 8 above, p. 17.
[14]
Cf. A. Vööbus, "Sur le développement de
la phase cénobitique et les réactions dans l'ancien monachisme
syriaque," in Recherches de science religieuse,
47 (1959), pp. 401-407. Vööbus has tried to reconstruct
the physiognomy of this primitive asceticism from the works
of Ephrem: cf. "Le
reflet du monachisme primitif dans les écrits d'Ephrem le Syrien,"
in Orient Syrien, 4 (1959), pp. 290-306.
[15]
E.
Beck, in the first article cited in note 5 above, pp. 341-362.
[16]
This
appears clearly in the evident difference between the first
twenty-four selections in Ephrem's Carmina Nisibena,
those that come from his Nisibian period, and the rest, which
stem from the Edessa period. See the critical edition by E.
Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena
(erster Teil), Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium,
268/269 (Louvain, 1961).
[17]
See
the article cited in note 8 above, p. 17.
[18]
O. Hendriks, "L'activité apostolique des
premiers moines syriens," in Proche Orient Chrétien,
8 (1958), pp. 3-25.
[19]
However, see the two excellent studies by Dom
Gribomont, "Le monachisme an IVe siècle en Asie Mineure:
de Gangres au messalianisme," in Studia Patristica,
vol. 2 (Berlin, 1957), pp. 400-415, and "Eustathe le philosophe
et les voyages du jeune Basile de Césarée," in Revue
d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 54 (1959), pp. 115-124.
[20]
J. Gribomont, Histoire du texte des Ascétiques
de s. Basile (Louvain, 1953).
[21]
See the edition of W. Jaeger et al., Gregorii
Nysseni Opera, vol. 8, part I. See also J. Daniélou, "Saint
Grégoire de Nysse dans l'histoire du monachisme,'' in Théologie
de la vie monastique (Ligugé, 1961), pp. 131-141
[22]
See the article cited in note 8 above, p.
21. Also J. Gribomont, "Obéissance et Évangile selon s. Basile le Grand,"
in Supplément de la Vie Spirituelle, 21 (1952), pp. 192-215.
[23]
J. Gribomont, "Saint Basile," in Théologie
de la vie monastique (Ligugé, 1961), p. 109.
[24]
I
can only summarize here very briefly what I have developed at
length in the work cited above in note 10; see especially pp.
181-188.
[25]
Dom
Gribomont has demonstrated this quite clearly. Besides his studies
on St. Basil already referred to, see "Les Règles Morales
de s. Basile et le Nouveau Testament," in Studia Patristica,
vol. 2 (Berlin, 1957), pp. 416-426.
[26]
This
explains the absence in Pakhomius of the notion, so widespread
in later times, of the monastic life or monastic profession
as a "second baptism." [On this subject see J. Leclercq,
"Monastic Profession and the Sacraments," in Monastic
Studies, 5 (Easter, 1968), pp. 59-85-Ed.]
[27]
Epistola
Theodori de Pascha,
in A. Boon, Pachomiana Latina (Louvain, 1932), pp. 105-115;
cf. Liber Orsiesii, par. 12, ibid., p. 116: "qui
primus instituit coenobia." Regarding the ideal of the
koinonia as the proper and distinctive note of Pakhomian
monasticism, see H. Bacht, "Pakhôme et ses disciples,"
in Théologie de la vie monastique (Ligugé 1961), pp.
39-71.
[28]
Second Catechesis of Theodore, in
L. T. Lefort, Oeuvres de s. Pachôme et de ses disciples
(Louvain, 1956), p. 38, lines 15 ff.
[29]
Vie bohairique de s. Pachôme, par.
194, in L. T. Lefort, Les vies coptes de S. Pachôme et de
ses premiers successeurs (Louvain, 1943), p. 212.
[30]
To
my knowledge it is a Protestant monk who has best expressed
the specific nature of Pakhomian cenobitism, while distinguishing
it from the eremitic groups: P. Y. Emery, "L'engagement
cénobitique, forme particulière et concrète de disponibilité,"
in Verbum Caro, 10 (1956), p. 146.
[31]
Praecepta, no. 49, in Boon, op. cit.,
pp. 25-26.
[32]
This
is not peculiar to Pakhomius, Père Congar writes that "the
texts of Acts 4, 32 and 2, 42-47 serve as the inspiration for
all the institutions or reforms of religious fife." See
"Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet,"
in Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 36
(1958), pp. 228-229; also L. S. Thornton, The Common Life
in the Bod of Christ (London, 1963).
[33]
On
the Pakhomian concept of the superior's office as one of service,
several texts have been assembled and beautifully commented
on by I. Hausherr, "Théologie de la volonté de Dieu et
obéissance chrétienne," in Revue d'ascétique et de
mystique, 42 (1966), pp. 149-152.
[34]
See
Lefort, Les vies coptes . . . , p. 26, lines 20-24; cf.
ibid., p. 114, lines 3-25; also the first Greek Life,
par. 51, in Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae, (Brussels,
1932). Horsiesius too, in his "testament" vigorously
forbids superiors to arrogate privileges to themselves: Liber
Orsiesii, par. 22, in Boon, op. cit., pp. 123-124.
[35]
See
the first Greek Life, par. 24, in Halkin, op. cit., pp.
14-15. However, this paragraph is only found in the Greek Life.
[36]
See Lefort, Les vies coptes
.... p. 49, lines I-5; also p. 76, lines 13-16
[37]
Practically
speaking it was only this office of "charismatic father"
in the desert tradition that was studied in most works on the
abbot and the abbatial office such as: J. Dupont, "Le nom
d'abbé chez les solitaires d'Égypte," in La Vie Spirituelle,
321 (1947), pp. 216-230; I. Hausherr, Direction spirituelle
en Orient autrefois (Rome, 1955); B. Steidle, "Homo
Dei Antonius: zum Bild des 'Mannes Gottes' im alten Möchtum,"
in Antonius Magnus Eremita, Studia Anselmiana, 38 (Rome,
1956), pp. 148-200.
[38]
Cf. J. Gribomont, "Evagre le Pontique,"
in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. 4 (1961), col.
1732; F. Refoule, "La mystique d'Evagre et l'Origénisme,"
in Supplément de la Vie Spirituelle, 66 (1965), pp. 453-463.
[39]
Cf. G. Bardy, "Didascale," in Catholicisme, vol. 3 (1952),
col. 749.
[40]
Cf.
I Tim. 2, 7; 2 Tim. I,II; Eph. 4, II; I Cor. 12, 28.
[41]
See
the references given by Bardy in the article cited in note 39.
[42]
On
the school of Alexandria see G. Bardy, "Alexandrie,"
in Catholicisme, vol. I (1948), col. 311.
[43]
Cf.
H. Crouzel, "Origène, précurseur du monachisme," in
Théologie de la vie monastique (Ligugé, 1962), pp. 18-20.
[44]
Ibid., p. 21. Alexandria was not the
only place where this happened. John Chrysostom and Theodore
of Mopsuestia, for example, belonged to a similar group of disciples
headed by Theodore of Tarsus. Cf. J. Daniélou, "La direction spirituelle dans la tradition ancienne
de l'Eglise," in Christus, 25 (1960), pp. 7-8.
[45]
Cf. I. Aufdermaur, Mönchtum und Glaubensverkündigung
in den Schriften des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus (Fribourg,
1959), pp. 105-141.
[46]
Cf. A. J. Festugière, Antioche païenne et
chrétienne (Paris, 1959), pp. 183-192.
[47]
H. Bacht has produced some pertinent reflections
on the difference between the obedience of the hermit and that
of the cenobite in his article "L'importance de l'idéal
monastique de s. Pachôme pour l'histoire du monachisme chrétien,"
in Revue d'ascétique et de mystique, 26 (1950),
p. 321.
[48]
Stromata, I, I, I.
Concerning this vocabulary and the office of catechist or didaskalos,
see A. Turck, "Catéchein et catéchésis chez les premiers
Pères," in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques,
47 (1962), pp. 361-372, especially p. 369.
[49]
For
a bibliography on the subject see H. Bacht, "Mönchtum und
Kirche. Eine Studie
zur Spiritualität des Pachomius," in Sentire Ecclesiam.
Das Bewusstsein von der Kirche als gestaltende Kraft der
Frömmigkteit, ed. J. Daniélou and H. Vorgrimmler (Freiburg
im Breisgau, 1961), pp. 113-114.
[50]
Some excellent information on this subject is
given by L. Ueding, "Die Kanones von Chalkedon in ihrer
Bedeutung für Mönchtum und Klerus," in Das Konzil von
Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. A. Grillmeier
and H. Bacht (Würzburg, 1953), pp.570-600.
[51]
Cf.
G. Luff, "A Survey of Primitive Monasticism in Central
Gaul, 350-700," in Downside Review, 70 (1952), pp.
180-203.
[52]
Some excellent studies were published in Saint Martin et son temps,
Studia Anselmiana, 46 (Rome, 1961).
[53]
Cf. G. Folliet, "Des moines euchites à
Carthage en 400-401," in Studia Patristica, Vol.
2 (Berlin, 1957), pp. 386-399.
[54]
Cf. A. Zumkeller, Das Mönchtum des heiligen
Augustinus (Würzburg, 1950); T. van Bavel, "De spiritualiteit
van de Regel van Augustinus," in Tijdschrift voor geestelijk
leven, 22 (1966), pp. 346-367.
[55]
Cf.
the preface to the Institutes, par. 4. A biographical note on Cassian can be found in Cappuyns'
article "Cassien (Jean)" in the Dictionnaire d'histoire
et de géographie ecclésiastique, vol. II (1949), cols. 1319-1348; see also O. Chadwick, John Cassian,
2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1968); J. C. Guy, Jean Cassien, Vie
et doctrine spirituelle (Paris, 1961), pp. 11-62. An extensive
bibliography can be found in H. O. Weber, Die Stellung des
Johannes Cassianus zur ausserpachomianischen Mönchstradition.
Eine Quellenuntersuchung (Münster, 1961).
[56]
Cf. E. Pichery, Conférences, vol. I, Sources Chrétiennes, 42 (Paris,
1955), p. 21: "Cassian considered himself the authoritative
representative of the tradition and line of thought of the entire
Christian East."
[57]
O.
Chadwick, one of the best authorities on Cassian, declares (John
Cassian, p. 53) that he was not reporting faithfully the
Egyptian or Syrian scene, but "was choosing and sifting
and interpreting the East to create a body of institutes suitable
to Gaul." See also J. C. Guy, "Jean Cassien, historien
du monachisme égyptien?" in Studia Patristica, vol.
8 (Berlin, 1966), pp. 363-372. In any case, when Cassian wrote
his first book, the Institutes, it was already almost
twenty years since he had left Egypt, and he admitted himself
that he could not depend on his memory (preface to the Institutes,
par. 4).
[58]
For
this whole aspect of Cassian's work see the excellent article
by Cappuyns cited in note 55 above.
[59]
Inst., XII, 19.
[60]
Preface
to the Institutes, par. 7.
[61]
J. Leroy, "Les préfaces des écrits monastiques
de Jean Cassien," in Revue d'ascétique et de mystique,
42 (1966), pp. 157-180.
[62]
J. Leroy, "Le cénobitisme chez Cassien,"
in Revue d'ascétique et de mystique, 43 (1967), pp. 121-158.
[63]
A. de Vogüé, "Monachisme et Eglise dans
la pensée de Cassien,'' in Theologie de la vie monastique
(Ligugé, 1961), pp. 238-239.
[64]
A. de Vogüé, La communauté et l'abbé dans
la Règle de saint Benoît (Paris, 1960), p159.
[65]
A. de Vogüé, "Monachisme et Église..."
(the
article cited in note 63), p. 236.
[66]
Ibid.
[67]
A. de Vogüé, La communauté et l'abbé
.... especially pp. 129-144 and the conclusion, pp. 528-538.
[68]
A. de Vogüé, "Le monastère, Église du Christ,"
in Commentationes in Regulam S. Benedicti, ed.
B.
Steidle, Studia Anselmiana, 42 (Rome, 1957), pp.
25-46.
[69]
The Master had a remarkable instinct for logic but frequently pushed
it to extremes.
[70]
A. de Vogüé, La communauté et l'abbé.
. . , pp. 132-133.
[71]
Ibid., p. 134.
[72]
Cf A. de Vogüé in his introduction to La
Règle du Maître, vol. I, Sources Chrétiennes, 105 (Paris,
1964), pp. 109-111. See also his note "L'origine du pouvoir
des abbés selon la Règle du Maître," in Supplément de
la Vie Spirituelle, 17 (1964), pp. 321-324.
[73]
Idem, La Règle
du Maître, vol. I, pp. 113-115. P. Tamburrino, who agrees
with Dom de Vogüé as to essentials, views the matter with certain
definite nuances: see "La Regula Magistri e l'origine del
potere abbaziale," in Collectanea Cisterciensia,
28 (1966), pp. 160-173.
[74]
The
dependence of the Regula Benedicti upon the Regula
Magistri is becoming more and more accepted by historians,
even if it cannot be proven apodictically.
[75]
This
has been very well shown by Dom de Vogüé in La communauté et
l'abbé . . , pp. 438-503.
[76]
Ibid.,
pp. 76-77.
[77]
L. Bouyer, "Retour aux sources et archéologisme,"
in Le message des moines à notre temps (Paris, 1958),
p. 171.
[78]
A. de Vogüé, La communauté et l'abbé.... p. 176.
[79]
Ibid., p. 288.
[80]
Ibid., p. 143.
[81]
B. Steidle, Die Regel St. Benedikts (Beuron,
1952). See also his numerous articles in Erbe und Auftrag
(formely Benediktinische Monatschrift).
[82]
A. de Vogüé, La communauté et l'abbé
.... p. 27.
[83]
Ibid., pp. 25-26.
[84]
Much
confusion has arisen because insufficient notice has been given
to Cassian's clear distinction between the Tabennites, who lived
in the Thebaid, and the Egyptians: e.g., "Apud Aegyptos
enim vel maxime Tabennesiotas. . ." (Inst. IV 17).
This distinction should be no surprise; it corresponds to the
contemporary political system in Egypt. When Egypt was annexed
to the Roman empire by Augustus, it was divided into three provinces
or administrative districts: the Thebaid, the Delta, and the
intervening country, known officially as "the Seven Nomes
and the Arsinoite Nome," with an epistrategos at the head
of each. (Cf. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 10
[Cambridge, 1952], p. 288 ff.) Diocletian's reorganization left
this tripartite division intact. (Cf. The Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. 12 [Cambridge, 1961], p. 391 ff.) As to Alexandria
with its Greek language and culture, it was so foreign as to
be considered somehow "outside" of Egypt.
[85]
It
has been a number of years since R. Draguet proved that Palladius,
in his chapters on the Tabennites, simply used an already existing
document in which a Coptic monk attributed to the followers
of Pakhomius the customs of the hermits of Lower Egypt: cf.
R. Draguet, "Le chapitre de HL sur les Tabennésiotes dérive-t-il
d'une source copte?" in Le Muséon, 57 (1944),
pp. 53-145 and 58 (1945), pp. 15-95. Hence it is quite surprising
that Dom de Vogüé continues to believe that the regula angeli
found in chapter thirty-two of the History derives from "the
second generation of Pakhomians": cf. A. de Vogüé, "Le
sens de l'office divin d'après la Règle de s. Benoît,"
in Revue d'ascétique et de mystique, 42 (1966), p. 393,
note 16. This is probably because he thinks that Palladius in
these chapters was using the later Greek Lives of Pakhomius:
cf. his article "Monachisme et Eglise . . . " mentioned
in note 63 above, p. 217. But already in 1930 Halkin, who edited
these Greek Lives containing the regula angeli,
had shown that they depend on the Lausiac History, and not the
other way around: cf. F. Halkin, "L'Histoire Lausiaque
et les Vies grecques de s. Pachôme," in Analecta Bollandiana,
48 (1930), pp. 257-301. Besides, these later Greek Lives are
adaptations, made outside of Egypt.
[86]
The
few stories that are common to the collection of
Apophthegmata and the later Lives of Pakhomius
have probably been taken from the former by the latter.
[87]
La communauté et l'abbé ....
p. 534, note I, and p. 326.
[88]
Cf.
C. Butler, Benedictine Monachism (Oxford, 1919).
[89]
La communauté et l'abbé .... p. 25.
[90]
Ibid., p. 326.
[91]
Der benediktinische Abt in rechtsgeschichtlicher Entwicklung und geltendem
Kirchenrecht (St. Ottilien,
1961).
[92]
H. Bacht, "Der Abt als Stellvertreter Christi.
Die Stellung des Abtes im christlichen Altertum im Lichte neuerer
Forschung," in Scholastik, 39 (1964), pp. 402-407.
[93]
J. M. Tillard, "Autorité et vie religieuse,"
in Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 88 (1966), pp. 786-806.
[English
translation in Review for Religious, 27 (1968), pp. 80-103].
[94]
Ibid., p. 789. [Eng. trans. p. 83.]
[95]
Ibid., p. 790. [Eng. trans. p. 84.]
[96]
Ibid.
[97]
J. Colson, Ministres de Jésus-Christ ou le
Sacerdoce de l'Évangile. Études sur la condition sacerdotale
des ministres chrétiens dans l'Église primitive (Paris,
1966).
[98]
Cf. J. Lécuyer, "L'épiscopat comme sacrement,"
in L'Église de Vatican II, ed. G. Baraúna and others, vol. 3, p.
754 ff
[99]
Ibid., p. 755.
|
|
||