Father Ambrose Watton will speak now on the concern for love of neighbor and early monastic life and sources. Ambrose. I may jump up from here and walk around a bit. I wish I had a blackboard because it'll take off some nervousness. As you who teach know quite well, everybody has their own characteristics of teaching. One of the things I thought about this morning was a statement from Dickens. It's in his letters of Bose or whatever it is. These two old maids who carried on a finishing school in which the young ladies learned a smattering of everything and knowledge of nothing. And after last night, I sort of feel that maybe that's the finishing school I've been through. The topic of the colloquium gives the context for my reflections this morning.

[01:05]

The love of God and love of neighbor. And then it continued on and it said the call to solitude, community and service in religious orders of the 12th century. And I'm supposed to speak on the patronal feast of my abbey on the position of the monks. When I got off of the airplane in Rochester, I thought, sure, I must have taken the wrong plane. I mean, there was snow, and I had left Azaleas, and I'm glooming Wisteria, but anyhow. So, I'm to speak on the concern for love of neighbor in early monastic life and sources. Now, in Mary Woodward's correspondence with me, and I haven't met Mary yet, so I hope I don't Anyhow, I think she prejudiced my remarks when she specified more particularly what I was to speak about. She said in a letter that I was to speak informally on the themes of first, the love of God, and then in parentheses, solitude and prayer.

[02:12]

And secondly, love of neighbor, and in parentheses, community and hospitality in the Benedictine tradition and sources. I'll come back to that point in a minute. My further prejudice was because of the project description which gave me a number of clues. And one of them was the notion of hospitality within the monastic community here. And then I picked up Father Nauwen's notion that hospitality really means that you give a person the free space and the free time for the guest to discover himself in relationship to the other guests and to God. It's the freedom to manifest ignorance, prejudices, and even become vulnerable. And so I sort of feel that that gives me some sort of reassurance that I have this free space. Because also in this description it says something about a promotion of candid discussion and trying out tentative ideas and hunches and speculations.

[03:20]

So I'm very pleased with that. The conference is to be exploratory and one can sort of ramble in the great expanse of an era. Now, I've referred to these communications, I guess, because I want to protect myself, lest you think I'm star-craving mad, as I gamble through, in sort of playful abandon, this huge area of monastic sources. And I'm quite aware that I do have a few axes to grind, but I hope that I can grind them playfully, and that there will be a certain amount of excitement and wonder as we grind these axes. Now, I'd like to give you a clue to my thinking by rumbling a little bit with the themes presented for my reflection. They were stated as love of God, parenthesis, solitude and prayer, and love of neighbor, parenthesis, community and hospitality.

[04:27]

And I don't like that. And so I'm going to... So I'm going to grind an axe a little bit for a minute. You see, what this statement suggests to me is that solitude and prayer refer to the love of God, and that community and hospitality refer to the love of man. And I'm wondering if that is an adequate distinction that we should make. Did the early monks make such a distinction? Did Benedict make such a distinction? Seems to me it's really the question of the inseparability of authentic love, or rather the essential interpenetration of love, or what we would call the universal embrace of love. just to get a little bit tied up theologically, can we say that God loves himself and also loves men?

[05:29]

And are these really distinct? I don't want to get tied up into a theological reflection. Those of you who are familiar with Karl Rahner, he's dealt with this. God is lover. And I think it's very difficult for us to make a distinction in the love of God and love of man, if in doing so we endanger what is essentially a unity, a mystery of wholeness that really boggles our mind. Let me say it in another way by asking a question and see how you feel about this question. Couldn't we just as well say love of God, parentheses, community and hospitality, and love of neighbor, parentheses, solitude and prayer? Couldn't we just as well say it that way? And if we do, doesn't that sort of broaden our perspective and sort of challenge some of our stale opinions?

[06:31]

One more point which I would like to mention, which may betray some of my prejudices and help you sort out the sense from the nonsense, is that Benedict never uses the term solitude in his rule. And this is quite different from John Cashion, who is his reputed source. who quite frequently uses solitude and extols the notion of solitude. And so if we would equate the love of God and solitude, when we go to the rule of Benedict, where does that leave us? We could conclude that Benedict is not much concerned about the love of God. And that sort of gives me the shivers all over with that kind of conclusion. Well, anyhow, let's stop these ramblings and ramble a little bit more elsewhere. I'd like to make some preliminary observations on the reading of history. I'm not a historian, except in monastic history, so I can... We're gambling today and sort of rumbling through the pastures, so let me say something about history.

[07:38]

I think we tend to characterize an epoch or a movement by certain universal characteristics. But this can be done only if we allow for and suspect that the reality that we're looking at will not always be that coherent and uniform as we have characterized it. Thus, when we view the period of monastic origins, quotation marks, from the 4th to the 6th century, I think we have to be very much aware that there are probably a variety of ideologies, motivations, visions, that there is not one monolithic force of monasticism. We have learned to recognize this with regard to other historical movements. I think the 12th century that we're discussing, at least from last night, I got this impression, this sensitivity towards a great deal of forces and a ferment. And maybe we can't really characterize the 12th century.

[08:41]

But certainly for the 4th to the 6th century, this cannot be done. An example, in biblical studies. The Hebrew world that produced the Old Testament. We can't see this Hebrew world as a monolithic world. Even within the Old Testament itself, you know that today people are not speaking of an Old Testament theology. You can't speak of that. You have to speak of Old Testament theologies. The same way when we get to the time of Jesus of Nazareth. And we would like to sort of characterize the Jewish world. What is it, really? The pluralism there, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, they're scenes. And then, as you get into Christian reflection on this event of Jesus, the New Testament, there's no New Testament theology. There are New Testament theologies. And to reduce, for instance, Mark to John, or John to Luke, is really simplistic.

[09:45]

And so I think, what I'm saying, we're aware of this in other areas. And I think in the 12th century, which you all are far more sensitive to than I, we sense this. How can we possibly characterize an age then with a few or even many common denominators that apply universally? And maybe this is a constant danger of a historian. Professor Southern, One said that the historian who tries to give the overall picture is bound to fail in giving the details. And if you get hung up on the details, you don't get the overall picture. It's like, what are you going to do? Maybe you ought to read my thesis on silence. How can we then With respect, look at this complex fermentation of the 12th century.

[10:49]

We recognize it as an age of ferment, an age where there are a variety of forces reacting against each other, influencing each other, cross-fertilizing each other. And maybe out of this rich ferment, there is a certain distilled concentrate that is passed on to later ages. But in this, it seems to me there is still a danger. because there's a human propensity towards a simplistic reductionism. And so a succeeding age will catch on to or canonize one or other of the constituent ingredients. And this gives us a certain amount of security because we can appeal to that age for our own position. Now this digression, I apologize for it, but I think it was important. Because how can I possibly, in a short time, do justice to so-called monastic origins from the 4th to the 6th centuries, in an age in which there was ferment taking place all over the Christian world?

[11:56]

I would suspect even greater than in the 12th century. We need only to read attempts to interpret early monastic phenomenon or phenomena. And I think we immediately sense that most historians have fallen into a trap of oversimplification, if not reductionism. This is a very complex fermentation. It's a complexity of movements. And what has been the case is people have reduced this complexity to what I would say a monolithic view of monasticism. Now, this is where I'm grinding my axe, but bear with me. You see, there's a broad thesis today that Benedict took that distilled concentrate of all of what preceded him and handed it on to the Middle Ages. And that is what I do not accept. I think I will hope to show why I don't really accept that simplistic position.

[13:04]

The topic then is the concern for love of neighbor in early monastic life and sources. Now I begin with a presupposition. Monks are concerned with the love of God. And maybe that's poorly said, because to love God is not a dominant New Testament theme. Men don't love God, at least in the Johannine literature, but men believe in God. They believe in a God who loves them, and they respond to that loving God by a surrender we call faith, obedience. And in that response of surrender to that loving God, they know they must then love one another. And so in the New Testament, we don't really speak of men loving God. Now, that's not totally true, but that's not the dominant notion in the New Testament.

[14:07]

Now, the question that I would have then is, how do early monks relate to one another, to all men, as they become aware of God's love for them? I think that's the question we want to ask. Does this love, which they receive and are aware of, flow out and cascade and embrace all other men? Or is it damned up so that they can delightfully swim in it in contemplation? That's the question I'm asking. Monastic tradition claims to be a radical biblical life. Now right away we would enter into the whole difficult problem of monastic origins and monastic visions. Something that comes to my mind is the Hellenistic influence in monastic a certain monastic school or spirituality. I think it's necessary as we look at monastic origins to sort out a variety of developments.

[15:15]

Monastic tradition is not monolithic. It is pluralistic. There is no single vision or unique spirituality. If you're aware, for instance, of somebody like Workman, you see that I am disagreeing with him. If you're aware of a spiritual author like Anselm Stoltz, who I have a great respect for as a theologian, I am disagreeing with him. And I am disagreeing with one of my contemporaries. I think I'm disagreeing with him, Adalbert de Vaughay. One of the difficulties we have is the relationship between cenobitic and eremitic life. which you have to come up against in the 12th century. The origin, the vision, the goal, the spiritual methodology. If monastic tradition tends to be exclusively concerned with the love of God, as some historians seem to suggest, then what is going to happen to that New Testament authenticity which I have said before?

[16:29]

I'm trying to pose questions more than right now, giving you any sort of a solution. I don't know if I'll give a solution. If the love of God begins to dominate among monks, as some people maintain it has, what forces influence this development? Was it in origins? Did it become universal? When does it begin to dominate? And why does it begin to dominate? So that monks love God and other people, canons or friars, love men. When does this begin? I would like just to note some categories which I think one would have to look at to sort out the complex monastic traditions. First of all, eremitic, cenobitic. Right away, you've got something to deal with. Secondly, more geographically, Egyptian and Syrian.

[17:34]

And when you get under Egypt, you've got Northern Egypt and Southern Egypt. You've got Anthony and Pacomius. And in Northern Egypt, you have coming on the scene, probably in the second generation, a man by the name of Evagrius, who was then picked up by John Cashion. Another distinction probably would have to be made is the distinction between the East and the West, between Origen and Augustine, for instance. If you go back to the notion just of Cenobitic monasticism, you've got more distinctions to make. You've got a cenobitic monasticism reflected in the rule of the master, which I think sees a community really as a community of hermits under a master. But you have another notion of cenobitic life, which people would call the communitarian mystique, the Pacomian notion of the holy koinonia, which is quite another vision of cenobitism.

[18:37]

Now, how are we going to possibly sort all this complexity out? Can we categorize tendencies in any helpful way? And here I would like to suggest and what I'm going to do is I'm going to use John Cashin as the watershed of that period. From John Cashin we will then look back and then hopefully if we have time we'll look forward a little bit. But I want to look especially at John Cashin. For John Cashin And the interpretation of him, I'm basically using Julien Lewa, who has done studies in John Gashin. Some of his articles are, I think, on reserve in the community room. But I don't use him without some hesitancy. I think Julien Lewa has an axe to grind, and maybe he's misusing his sources, I don't know. But I think he has something to say. One of the points he makes is that the goal of the hermit

[19:39]

In Kashin, it's contemplation. And the goal of the Cenobite is apostolic love. Now, what does it mean by those terms? The question that comes to my mind is with Lewa's studies. Did Kashin, was he the one who began to separate, dichotomize and evaluate movements or forces or aspects of a monasticism or a unified monasticism earlier than him? That's the question I'm asking. In this, one gets into the problem of how can we get back to a pre-John Cassian, pre-Evagrian desert tradition. I don't know if I'm making too much sense to people who don't know anything about monastic origins, but I'll just keep on going because I'm just rambling in the field and there'll be time for questions afterwards. For instance, if you take the Apothegmata of the Fathers, the sayings of the Fathers, Jean-Claude Guy has pointed out that we have to be very careful as we read these sayings of the Fathers that we don't allow the Evagrian interpretation that came on later to keep us from the original sayings.

[21:03]

Evagrius had a great influence around the, well, towards the end of the fourth century. And all the sayings of the fathers, all of these things, the, well, Palladius, for instance, the lousy act history is certainly influenced by Evagris, John Gashin, and then many of the lives, the lives of Poconius, for instance, who is certainly not in the Evagrian influence. The lives, though, probably are influenced by Evagrian mentality. Now, how are we going to sort all this out? See, that's one of the difficulties of trying to get back to those origins of monasticism. One thing that has happened in our time, and I think it's the real breakthrough, if there was a breakthrough in the 12th century of returning to sources by the Greek fathers being available in the West at that time, I think the breakthrough today is that we have rediscovered Pokomian monasticism. I see it as it has made as much impact on our understanding of monasticism today as the rediscovery of the Alexandrians did for the Cistercian Reform.

[22:17]

I'm really throwing out a lot today. I've been hunched and speculations, but Maybe we can also get to some pre-Vagrian monasticism in Syria. And there, Arthur Robus has written quite a bit on Syria, but especially Jean Ribamont with regard to Basil, who is a more important person there. Let's take a look at John Cashin for a minute. Why is Cashin our point of reference to help us sort out this confusion and clarify the situation. There's a great deal of controversy going on at present about John Cashin. How much did he influence the rule of Benedict? How much did he influence Western asceticism? And seemingly he has dominated Western asceticism. And how faithful was he to tradition? And so I think with John Cashin we jump into sort of the whirlpool or the tornado or the hurricane of today.

[23:22]

I think John Cashin, I don't know why they still have these machines now, but they used to be, years ago, called a Kelvinator Disposal. You just put everything in and ground it all up and got rid of it. Dear John Cashin, in my mind, is a Kelvinator Disposal. After everything has gone through, you don't know what was what anymore. So you no longer can identify any individual ingredient. And so, with John Cashin, we sort of touch the heart of the revolution going on in monastic studies and the meaning of monasticism. Its goal, its purpose, its aim, its method. I see him historically similar to something of Benedict of Anion, to Cluny, to Citeaux, and the Romantic revival of the 19th century. There are these periods in history when something is happening.

[24:24]

And I think with Cassian, that's why I'm using him as sort of the watershed. All of these others, Aneon, Cluny, Sateau, Solem, Boiron, had a monolithic view of monastic life and denied the validity of diverse traditions or pluralism. And I think that the question of Cassian articulates, exposes, and reveals the underlying problematics. I mentioned to you that one of the studies going on today is in Pacomian monasticism. And this has produced a credibility gap concerning John Cassian. He probably did not know very much about Pacomius at all. We don't have time to go into Cassian, Nevertheless, the study of Pocomius and the study of Cassian are having reciprocal influences and they are correcting each other.

[25:26]

The question of origins is involved here. Which is first? Anchoritism or Cenobitism? I don't know what your position is, but the classical position generally is that the eremitic life is first and cenobitic life develops out of it. I would refer to Adrian Hastings' article and a number of articles that are on the bibliography. This is pretty much the general thesis. Cashin himself, with his myth of apostolic origins, would deny that, that the origins are really cenobitic. So you see right away it's very complicated, just in Cashin himself. Arthur Wobus, in his study on Syria, maintains that the eremitic life was first, and then developed into the cenobitic. But Jean Rivemont points out that this is not true, that the earliest monasticism, these terms are also loaded, but it's cenobitic, it's community.

[26:33]

And this, something that came up last night, you know, this individualism that begins to grow, Why did Cenobites and a Cenobitic monastic tradition begin to develop into eremitic life? That's the question I like to ask. And historically I think I have better foundation for that than the old thesis. And there you see that already in the 4th century individualism, the way you were talking about it last night in the 12th century, why this eremitic We've often considered Egypt as the locale of monastic origins, and this is no longer accepted. Monasticism is cropping up all over the place, independently of other places. Now, there's cross-fertilization. From a point of view of monastic source study, we are really sort of like the temptress says in Pogo, we're in a tempest in a tea's pot.

[27:43]

I don't know if you like Pogo, but I love Pogo, and I think Walt Kelly is the most brilliant social commentator of our century. And one of the things that last night, something came to my mind, that thing where he says, what's all this stuff everybody running around about meaning? And we're all searching for meaning. Did you ever go up to a buttercup or a tree and say, hey, what are you doing? What are you all about? What's your purpose? You don't do that. And so anyhow, he takes off on this meaning. And maybe we're too concerned about meaning. But anyhow, we're in this tempest. What I see in spirituality today is that there is a real breakthrough from Evagrian domination in the West. And just something that I see happening here is, those of you who are familiar with the spiritual renewal of the American priesthood by the Catholic bishops, that to me is a real breakthrough in Cassian's domination of Western spirituality.

[28:54]

What is happening today is that I don't think our contemporaries are willing to accept the type of spirituality that has been handed down to them. Now, I'm jumping all over in history, but the reason I make that point is because what I see in the 12th century, with the rise of the clerics, the friars, and the canons, they were not willing to accept what had been handed down, possibly because of what had been handed down. Let me sort of summarize Leroy's, Leroy's position on John Cashin, where I think he's really made a breakthrough into the study of John Cashin. Whether his studies are true or not, I think that they're a little fuzzy at times.

[29:56]

But there's something there, because he's making his opponents very uneasy. That's for sure. And people, for instance, Dave O'Gray, who would say, look, if you want to understand the rule of Benedict, of the Rule of the Master, but really John Cashin. There you have the spirituality. Dave Ogwe is responding in kind to Lewa because Lewa is sort of shaking some of the foundation stones. What does Lewa say? I think very cleverly and with some contrivance, he shows that the institutes and the conferences of Cashin are not really two works which form a unity. which, for instance, Pichari and Jean-Claude Guy in Sources Chrétien would maintain, or even somebody like Owen Chadwick would maintain. Rather, he shows that there are actually five separate volumes, somewhat related, but in reality disparate. Volume 1 is Institutes 1 to 4, Concerns Cenobitic Tradition and Doctrine.

[30:57]

Volume 2 is Institutes 5 to 12. This is general asceticism, but is primarily anchoritic. Volume 3 is Conference 1 to 10, again anchoritic doctrine. Volume 4, Conference 11 to 17, is anchoritic again. And Volume 5 is basically cenobitic. That's Conference 18 to 24. Volume 1 is Institutes 1 to 4 concerning Cenobitic tradition and doctrine. Volume 2 is Institutes 5 to 12. This is general asceticism but is primarily anchoritic. Volume 3 is Conferences 1 to 10, again anchoritic doctrine. Volume 4, Conferences 11 to 17, is anchoritic again. And volume 5 is basically cenobitic. That's conference 18 to 24. And in 19 to 23, there is cenobitic doctrine and only anchoritic doctrine insofar as it agrees with the Cenobites.

[32:04]

The point that Lewa is making is that the reader of Cassian must be discreet. He must distinguish between Cenobitic and Anchoritic doctrine. They are not the same in every respect, and indeed only in very few respects, although there are similarities and agreements. In his second article, Lewa attempts to substantiate his view by looking at the understanding of Cenobitism as found in John Cassian's five volumes. And this I think he does very cleverly. So you got John Cashin writing these conferences of the fathers and the institutes of the fathers, and reporting what mostly hermits have said, but also people like Penufius, a Cenobite. And what Loire is trying to find out is, what do the Cenobites in John Cashin really think of themselves? What do the Anchorites think of the Cenobites? And what does John Cashin think of the Cenobites? It's a very clever sort of thing, and you can see he's... It's fascinating to watch him manipulate text.

[33:11]

You can imagine the difficulty this presents a person, and how many pitfalls there may be along the way. But he's trying to sort out the opinions of those whom Cashin reports as John Cashin's opinion. So he's trying to sort that out. And so, trying to sort out Cashin's own prejudicial opinions in his reporting. Now, Lewa gives indications that he will probably do more of this later on, but he has done just on Cenobitism. and how the Cenobites look at Cenobitism, how the Anchorites look at Cenobitism, how John Cashin looks at Cenobitism. Then he wants to do how the Cenobites look at Anchoritism, and how the Anchorites look at Anchoritism, and how John Cashin looks at Anchoritism. I don't think he's got around to that yet. In his article, he says there are two ways, and this is recognized both by Cenobites and Anchorites. For the Anchorites, the way is withdrawal. The desert.

[34:15]

Separation. But for the Cenobites, it's not withdrawal. And that term doesn't come up. But rather, renunciation. And the Cenobites generally are living around an urban center or in suburbia. They are not in the desert. And all of the Egyptian Cenobians that Cassian knew were suburban. With regard to the origins of Cenobitism, even there, both of the myths that John Cashin presents, one the myth of the institution from Alexandria and the other in Jerusalem, both of them take place in suburban situations. Another point that he makes is the relationship between Cenobitic and Anchoritic lives as the Cenobium as a prep school for the Hermitage.

[35:20]

And, of course, this is John Cassian's thesis. But that is not the position of the Anchorites nor the Cenobites in John Cassian. In fact, they all say, be very careful that you don't float back and forth. Because these two ways of life have different goals, different methods, different spiritualities, if you will. And one man cannot live both of them. And this is what fascinates me about the 11th century and 12th century reform. They were trying to do what the Cenobites and the Anchorites and John Cashion said was impossible. But what Cashion said was possible. But of course, remember John Cashion. He had been a Cenobite. And he got to Egypt with this vow to go back to Bethlehem and didn't want to go. Now, what do you do? Well, you talk to people and you rationalize. And you find out that it's much better to stay here than to go back to where you promised and vowed to go back.

[36:25]

For the Cenobites in Cassian, there's no suggestion that they are aspiring to the anchoritic life. One of the famous allocutions in John Cassian, in his Institute Book Four, the allocution of Abbot Penufius, which is a delightful thing, and that's really where the master and Benedict got the twelve degrees of humility. That's the basis of it. Now that doesn't mean one can't change their orientation. To change orientation is an exception. Of 30 anchorites in Cassium, maybe three had begun in a cenobium. Just from the point of view of how many anchorites actually had begun in a cenobium. More important, the goal. The goal for the hermit is contemplation. It's very interesting. Benedict never uses the term contemplation. Now, Edward de Vaugoy has An explanation for that, but I have another explanation.

[37:32]

The goal for the Cenobites is apostolic love. Now, what is apostolic love for these Cenobites? Abbot Theonis in Conference 23 explains it. Paul is drawn to contemplation, but he is willing to forget it for the sake of his brothers and even be anathema. for his brothers. And so he says, I'll leave contemplation for eternity. It's not that I don't want it, but I'll leave it for eternity because of apostolic love. I will stay and work for the sake of my brothers and even be anathema. And in other texts, contemplation is the proper goal of the anchorite. going to have to dash along here. I would like now to go back to some earlier sources and can't possibly go through all of them and even the ones that I would like to, but let's just pick and choose a few.

[38:37]

The Life of Anthony by Athanasius, 357, written. Translated into Latin by Evagrius, but not written by Evagrius. Apostolic life seems to be the things that you're dealing with in the 12th century, the apostolic life and also love of God and love of neighbor. Apostolic life. Right at the beginning of the life of Anthony, his call to asceticism. He was walking along reflecting about how the apostles had sold everything and how the people in the act sold everything and laid it at the feet of the apostles and the apostles distributed to the needy and then you recall he went into church and heard the gospel and decided to be an ascetic. So there you have the notion of the apostolic life, I think, at least implicit. He wants to do what the apostles have done. Now, with regard to the love of God and man, and this is where I think one gets the idea that there's not a separation between love of God and love of man.

[39:41]

Early in his life, he goes to learn asceticism from ascetics near his hometown, and he watched them because he wanted to practice what they practiced. What did he watch? the graciousness of one, earnestness at prayer in another, the even temper and kind-heartedness of another, vigils, studies by others, patient endurance, fasting, sleeping, meekness, forbearance. He marked especially devotion to Christ and the love they had for one another." That was the thing that influenced him the most for all of this long list. Devotion to Christ and their love for one another. He always used to say to his monks, prefer nothing in the world to the love of Christ. But the question is, of course, what is this love of Christ? He never defines it. In another text we see that in his discourse to the monks, he said, we should possess those things which we can take along with us, prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, understanding, charity,

[40:55]

love of the poor, faith in Christ, meekness, hospitality. It's very interesting to notice the constellation of virtues in these ancient texts. Now this is very much Stoic and Greek, at least in the beginning. Later on, these ascetics were noted for vigils, prayers, meekness, love of the poor, almsgiving, freedom from anger, and most of all, their loyalty to Christ. Christ is dominating in the life of Anthony. If you just reflect for a moment, it was written by Athanasius, the one who defended the Christology of the Church against the Arians, and so one sees that almost that the life of Anthony is a polemic by Athanasius about the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that comes out frequently in the life. There's also a notice about their solitary cells where they were singing and fasting and preserving love and harmony among themselves.

[42:00]

In Western asceticism, Owen Chadwick has translated in the Vitae Patrum Book Five, the Apophegmata. There's a story of two brothers who went into town to sell their goods to monks, and one of them fell into fornication. This frequently happens in the 4th century. It doesn't happen these days, but it happened in the 4th century. And when they got ready to go back, one brother said, I'm not going back. I said, well, why? He told him why. He said, I can't go back. So the other one said, I'm not going either. I'm going to stay here with you and do penance with you. And the story is that one did penance not for himself but for the other, as though he himself had sinned. And God, seeing his earnestness and his charity, disclosed to one of the elders a few days later that he had forgiven the fornicator because of the charity of the brother who had not sinned.

[43:08]

Truly this was to lay down his soul for his brother. This is a theme that comes up in these ancient texts. What is the commandment? To lay down your life for your brother. And this is a way of realizing that. One I like pretty much, and I don't know how this fits in. Three brothers once came to an old man in Skete. One of them asked him, Abba, I have memorized the Old and the New Testaments. And the old man answered, You have filled the air with words." And the second asked him, I have written the Old and New Testaments with my own hand. And the old man said, and you have filled the window ledge with manuscripts. And the third said, the grass is growing up my chimney. And the old man answered, and you have driven away hospitality. One that I guess we have to talk about is Abbot Arsanius, who is frequently spoken about.

[44:27]

Abba Mark said to Abbot Arsanius, Why do you run away from us? And the old man said, God knows I love you, but I cannot be with God and with men. The countless hosts of angels have but a single will, while men have many wills. So I cannot let God go and come and be with men. See, this is quite a different tradition than some of the others, this running away from men. He also said, Abbot Poyman, there is nothing greater in love than that a man should lay down his life for his neighbor. When a man hears a complaining word and struggles against himself and does not himself begin to complain, When a man bears an injury with patience and does not look for revenge, that is when a man lays down his life for his neighbor. They're dealing with this problem of love of neighbor. And maybe they're dealing with it in a different way than we would deal with it. A brother asked an old man, there are two monks.

[45:30]

One stays quietly in his cell, fasting for six days at a time, and laying many austerities upon himself, and the other ministers to the sick. Which of them is more acceptable to God? The old man answered, if the brother who fasts six days even hung himself up by his nostrils, he would never be the equal of him who ministers to the sick." A story from the Lausiac history. of Paisios and Isaias. Paisios and Isaias were sons of a Spanish merchant. Their father died, and they said, well, what are we going to do? He said, well, let's be monks. So one of them said, nothing else to do. So one of them said, OK, I'm going to give away everything and lead a life of austerity, asceticism, and penance. Fine. The other one said, I'm going to build a hospital. and take care of people.

[46:32]

And he did that. But notice the story says they both wanted to be monks. Afterwards, when these two men had died, their followers came to Abbot Pamble. Abbot Pamble was one of my favorite characters. in the apple segment, Abbot Pample is the one who told Archbishop Theophilus when he kept sending, he said, look, give me a good word, give me a good word. And after about the third or fourth trip of the people who were coming, Abbot Pample, who was constantly keeping silence, finally said, tell the Archbishop, if he's not impressed by my silence, he won't be impressed by anything I have to say. But this Abbott-Pamble, they used to always come to Abbott-Pamble because, and sometimes he would wait months, like some abbots, before he gave a decision. But so the followers of Apasius and Isaiah tell us, which one is the greatest? Because this rivalry is going on.

[47:33]

And Abbott-Pamble said, Go away, don't bother me, don't ask me those kind of questions. But they kept on, which one of these is the greatest? Because, whichever one is the greatest, that gives me security in my way of life, you know, then I'm the greatest. And so finally, Abbot Phan was like, well, come back in a couple of days. So finally they came back and they asked him again. He said, I had a vision. And they're always having visions. But anyhow, he had a vision. He said, I saw both of them standing before the throne of God. That ended the dispute. But you say, well, I think this is so important. This is Palladius, 420. Isn't this the history of the rivalry among religious in the Western Church and even in the Eastern Church? And this is in an Evagrian document, insofar as Palladius is writing it. Basil. I promise to quit in a minute. We'll never get to the Rule of Bengals, but Basil. In his rules, and let's take, for instance, his long rules.

[48:36]

In question seven. So, on the necessity of living in the company of those who are striving for the same objective, that of pleasing God, and the difficulty and hazards of living the life of a solitary. Now, in the long rules, this is number seven. In the Latin, which has come down to us only in Latin, which we find is translated from the Greek, which is an earlier redaction of these rules, is actually, I think, question three. The first question is, the main commandment, the love of God and neighbor. Now how do we do this? And so you see it's in that context that Basil then is going to say, live in community. And that's what he develops because he says, you know, a person who lives in the solitary life cannot fulfill all the commandments. His first argument is just on what we would call the natural plane. He's not going to be able to take care of his resources. But then he goes into what you would call a theological reason, and always based on scripture.

[49:41]

And the doctrine of the charity of Christ does not permit the individual to be concerned solely with his own private interests. Charity seeketh not her own. And so a life in solitude, he says, and of course he's against solitary life, is one that is concerned only with oneself. And that's against the commandments, he says. And he's struggling with this commandment of love of God and love of neighbor. And as he develops this, he says, we share together one another's gifts, one another's graces. And that classical text towards the end where he says, whose feet will the hermit wash? And that's the command of Jesus. Wash one another's feet. Whose feet will the hermit wash? The point is that Banzo is dealing with this problem of love of God and love of neighbor. Proclomius, one point. In his rules, there's a statement called, love is the fullness of the law.

[50:46]

And what happens right after that is a penal code. But can I spend a few minutes on the rule of Benedicta? It seems to me the core question concerning the rule is, what is the position of the rule of Benedict on love of God and love of man? And I think that's a core question for us because this rule is normative and is a forming influence on medieval monks. And it is the authority constantly appealed to or rejected at this particular period, it seems to me. Now, some preliminary observations. We must be very careful in interpreting the rule that we don't read back into it medieval problems. Now, when I say medieval, I'm talking about 9th to 12th, 13th centuries there. The rule could be considered a medieval document. We won't get into the problem of dating now.

[51:47]

Nobody's brought that up. But we must be careful that we don't read back into the rule medieval disputes. Benedict is not a theorist. He's not a speculative theologian. He's not like John Cashin, whom Chadwick says is a theoretician. spiritual theology. He's not like that. He's not like the master, his source, who loves to speculate. And much of what he has to say is going to be implicit rather than explicit. And I like to deal with a notion that Bernard Lonergan uses in dogmatic theology, and that's what you call a heuristic notion. A heuristic notion is one that at least in kernel has the possibility of the development of a later theological statement. For instance, the New Testament and then to later theology. And this can work two ways. For instance, in Benedict there may very well be the kernel or the seed for the solitary life and its whole development in later monasticism.

[52:56]

Maybe. But there are other possible developments too. I think that Benedict's theological bias is deduced from inferences. The way I would approach this is, first of all, an analysis of literary form, then his selection of sources, and that's a very difficult problem, and then behavioral patterns, deeds more than words. Just to give you one little idea of this analysis from structure. In chapter four, which is the chapter on good works, the instruments of good works, and in some ways begins the spirituality of the rule, because after that you get to obedience, silence and humility. What are the instruments of good works?

[53:59]

In the first place, To love the Lord your God with your whole heart, whole soul, and all your strength, and then your neighbor as yourself. Then don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal on down the line. Notice he begins with that two-fold commandment. If one compares this with the rule of the Master, his immediate source, there's quite a bit of difference. The Master begins with this same law, but he begins that, in the first place, we ought to believe in the Holy Trinity, the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then to love that one God with our whole heart, soul, not virtute, he doesn't have that. And then in secundis, in the second place, Benedict has scratched out in secundis, because that's a stylistic thing, but he's scratched that out. And then in secundis, then on down the line. Benedict, when he comes to the end of his instruments of good works, adds things which are not in the Master.

[55:08]

And that is, let them venerate the seniors, let them love the juniors, and in the love of Christ, let them pray for their enemies. And that's added compared to the rule of the Master. Now, what I see Benedict has an inclusio in this chapter, the literary technique of an inclusion. The love of God and love of man begins the chapter, and they can't be separated. You can't tell that right off. He ends with the same note, the love of man and the love of Christ, in the notion of incriste amore, in the love of Christ. Let them pray for their enemies. You see, my contention is that he could not separate these two commandments, like Basil couldn't. And furthermore, in this structural analysis, if we look at chapter 72 of the rule, which is really the last chapter.

[56:15]

73 is an epilogue. It was probably written before, but anyhow, it's the epilogue. Chapter 72 on good zeal. If we analyze that chapter, what it is is horizontal relationships the love for one another in the community, which realizes one's preference for Christ. He ends that chapter with Christo omninunicul treponant, who will lead us all together into the heavenly kingdom, heavenly life. The point is that stylistically or structurally, Benedict is dealing with this twofold commandment. And my point is, that his theology, his spirituality, is what we would call today incarnational. I can't prove all that here, but I'm just throwing that out. That is rather foundation-rocking for some people in their interpretation of monasticism.

[57:18]

Benedict, and if you study, for instance, Christ in the rule, which Andre Boryas has done, we meet Christ in one another. And our love for Christ is realized in our love for one another. If one looked, for instance, at behavior patterns, one would see just a simple thing of hospitality and its comparison with the rule of the master, the washing of the feet, excommunication, the treatment of the sick. I think Benedict spirituality is I think he's a phenomenologist. I don't think he knew it, but I think he was. Theologically, I would say he is a sacramentalist. Monastic life is symbol, and it's the realization of the love and the grace of God because it's realized, expressed among us, or it doesn't exist.

[58:29]

that is quite different than Evagrius and John Cashin, the apathetic school. I would like to conclude, if I can, with, I think, an analogy which may help us all relax a little bit because we're not, I don't think, I hope not, this is from Russian spirituality. from Fedotov, his book, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality. And I was fascinated by this book. He shows that the canonic spirituality of Russia, which goes back to the Kievan period, and I think he begins with Theodosius or somebody like that. I forget the guy's name. Yeah, Theodosius. What happened in Russian spirituality Somewhere about three or four centuries after the Kievan period in St. Theodosius, there was a split.

[59:32]

In the early spirituality, it was caritative solitude. Love and asceticism combined. And apostolic endeavors combined with a great deal of asceticism. Historically, there came a split. And then you find that extreme desert hermitages of the people in the Siberian deserts, or forests, and the others, the monks who were totally involved with apostolic labor. In origin, that was not the case. Historically, that developed. And why I think this is a good analogy is because this is something similar to what I see has happened in the West. Now, at what point this happened, I'm not sure. The New Testament is a unity, really, love of God and love of neighbor. Monasticism begins already, in some of its forms, emphasizing one to the exclusion of the other.

[60:43]

And all throughout the history, I think this has been part of our difficulty. I better leave it at that. Breathe for a minute and then I'll come back.

[60:56]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ