We're going to continue with the Kumaran today, and after seeing the facts of the Kumaran, I think we're ready to look a little bit more at their doctrine and then go on and compare it with Christian monasticism. I'm sure there's going to be some repetition here, but I don't think that'll hurt us too much. So we want to look at what we call the monks of Qumran, or the people of the scrolls, or, as we've seen, I think we can call them the Essenes, although, as mentioned, this is disputed whether these people are really the Essenes. The book by Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran, says that we shouldn't really speak of the Essenes as monks, and he's about the only one who makes this comment. Most of the people, when they talk about the people at Qumran, very easily attribute the term monks and monasticism to it. Exactly why Cross doesn't like it, I think, depends on his concept of monasticism and asceticism, and the whole definition of what is monasticism.

[01:12]

But for instance, a man by the name of Sutcliffe has written a book which he calls The Monks of Qumran, so he doesn't have any hesitancy about using that term at all. And I don't think we have to go into that problem, whether or not they're really what we would call monks or not, but I do think that in looking at them we can see some comparisons to Christian monasticism. So first of all we want to look at the doctrine of these people. When we talk about the doctrine We talk about apocalypticism and then a separatist movement. Those are the two basic areas under the doctrine. Apocalypticism, and we already see this apocalyptic trend in the latter part of the Old Testament, for instance, the book of Daniel. That's really not a prophetic book, but an apocalyptic book. And already in the classical prophets like Ezekiel, you have the beginning of apocalypticism, And in Zechariah.

[02:15]

And there's some of it even in Isaiah. But what apocalypticism tries to do is to revive the Old Testament, or the ancient doctrine of history, and it tries to recapture what is the classical prophetic understanding of a history of salvation. So apocalypticism really grows out of prophecy, and they're very closely connected. But what apocalypticism is, is a sort of a mixture of Old Testament theology, the Hellenistic philosophy and theology, the Greeks and Alexander the Great in that time, and also Persian or Iranian theology and philosophy, Zoroaster and all of those people. So it's really a conglomeration. What it does is see the world history in the grips of a warring forces. So one of the things that predominates in apocalypticism is this conflict, this battle between God and Satan, between the spirits of truth and evil, light and darkness, all of these images come up in this apocalypticism.

[03:25]

Is that a dualism? In many ways it is a dualism, yes. Now it's not necessarily an exaggerated dualism. For instance, some people say that Persian Zoroastrianism is where you have two absolute powers, one absolute good and one absolute evil, or where there are two gods, one good and evil. But that's not necessarily the case. Now, some of this we see, for instance, in the Gospel of John, the struggle between light and darkness, spirit and flesh. This is the type of struggle that goes on, but this is pretty characteristic of almost all religions. But what's different about apocalypticism is that it sees world history interpreted in that light, and what these powers then are doing are objectified in a cosmic struggle. There's a great cosmic struggle of good and evil, and this will conclude on the final day when God will make his judgment between good and evil.

[04:28]

This cosmic battle and day of judgment is prepared for by a final war in which a Messiah will lead the good people against Satan and the evil people. You see, in Qumran you had this whole thing about the war concept, the cosmic war. It is God alone who will bring salvation and victory. And this is pretty much the mentality of the people at Qumran, this apocalyptic movement, with the Messiah, the cosmic battle, and it's all in relationship to going back to Jerusalem, to set up the pure Israel, to clean out Jerusalem from the evil influence. The other aspect of their doctrine, which I think is very important, is what we would call separatism. And this separatism was based on doctrinal motives. Why did the Qumranites separate themselves from Judaism? We come here to the point that the Qumran group were sectarians and they were schismatic.

[05:36]

They were not just a group within a group, but they were really schismatics. On this point, we enter into the complex problem of their origins, which is greatly disputed, and there are various hypotheses, but there are some common agreements about their origin. For instance, the sectaries, or the Cumanites, considered that the Jerusalem priesthood was illegitimate because it was no longer of the line of Zadok. It didn't belong to the house of Aaron. I mentioned to you that the Hasmoneans, the Maccabees, had become both king and priest. So they had assumed a priestly role, and they were not Zadokites. So the secretaries maintained that they preserved the Zadokite priesthood, the pure priesthood. And in order not to be contaminated, they removed themselves from Jerusalem. Joe? Let me make sure I understand who Zadok is. Zadok was the Aaronite priest that remained faithful to David?

[06:37]

Right. I forget in the Old Testament who exactly, how Zadok comes in there, but he is the the father of all legitimate priesthood in Israel, and he is the Aaronic line. But you see, these people, the Hasmoneans, were not in the Aaronic line, and I forget what tribe they belonged to, but they didn't belong to the tribe of Levi, or even if they did, they weren't in the clan tribe of Aaron and then Zadok. Another point which made them separate was the fact that these illegitimate priests in Jerusalem, the Hasmoneans, had introduced a new calendar and they were claiming, the Cumanites were claiming, to preserve the ancient calendar. With regard to those ideas of priesthood and calendar, then we see that the sectarians said that they had the legitimate priesthood, the authentic calendar, and so they separated themselves from the Jewish community, which was defiled, in order to keep themselves ritually pure.

[07:50]

They said that the temple sacrifices were impure and illegitimate, and to have contact with the temple sacrifices would make them pure and illegitimate. Therefore, they rejected it. So they left Jerusalem and retired to the desert, trying to keep themselves pure in the desert for the time when they would go back in the cosmic battle with the Messiah, and fight against Satan and all of this illegitimacy and impurity, and restore the temple in its purity, the sacrifices, and the calendar. And so they lived in the desert in order to remove themselves from the contamination of Jerusalem. Now this place in the desert was a place of purity and preparation in order to return to Jerusalem. In the desert, they awaited God's deliverance and judgment. So they were just waiting for the Messiah. Notice all of this expectation for Messiah. And that's why it's very important for understanding the New Testament times this expectation of a Messiah.

[08:57]

They were preparing themselves for the final cosmic battle. And as they were in the desert waiting for this cosmic battle, they lived the life of ancient Israel in the desert. So they structured their whole life and their whole theology on ancient Israel. The farming ideology or theology of their desert experience then was that of the New Covenant. They were the people of the Covenant. They were the ones who lived according to the law and its purity. New Covenant, Father? Well, see, their idea was that they were maintaining the ancient covenant And that when the Messiah would come and re-enter Jerusalem, then would be the New Covenant to be established, which had been promised. And so they thought of themselves as people of the New Covenant. God had preserved them as a faithful remnant to the Covenant. They alone were the pure Israel, the true Israel.

[10:00]

Notice this concept of amitism. God had renewed the Covenant with them in a special way. and upon restoration of Jerusalem after the battle he would establish his new and permanent covenant with them." Now let's take a look at their way of life, which flows a lot from their sort of doctrine, their vision of what they are. First of all, they are characterized by fidelity to the law or the Torah, the Tentatewk. They said that they were the ones who were faithful to the law in its integrity. And you see, right away there's a contradiction. The law establishes sacrifices which have to be performed. They have withdrawn from the sacrifices of the temple, and yet they maintain that they are keeping the whole law. But we find this constantly in the religious mentality. They said that they were perfectly obedient to the Torah and admission into their sect, to their community, demanding obedience, perfect obedience to the Torah.

[11:13]

They also practiced celibacy, although there's a great dispute whether all the Essenes were married or not. We are probably safe with other authors in distinguishing two categories of Essenes with regard to celibacy. The people of Qumran, who did not marry. And then the Essenes in the villages of Palestine and around Damascus, who did marry. So right away we have two sort of orders within the sect. The desert community and the village dwellers. Now, the reason for celibacy for the desert community was probably ritual purity. In order to participate in the holy war, they had to be ready. And thus their reason for celibacy, we could say, was apocalyptic and eschatological. It was looking forward to some future moment. They had to be ready to celebrate in the temple when Jerusalem was retaken, and also ritual purity was demanded in the temple sacrifices.

[12:17]

So here they were just waiting in preparation for any moment to fight the war, to go back to Jerusalem, offer the legitimate sacrifices. There may also be practical reasons for celibacy in the desert, according to some people at least, say that a rough and rugged life would really not be suitable for family life, for women and children. Although this isn't a very convincing argument to me, because the bedrooms today have a very rugged life, they may have a familial life. But this argument says that the problems of food, of lodging, of cultural amenities, would be unattainable in this desert situation. Therefore, it could not be a married community, because this is really a stark place there on the shores of the Dead Sea. They also shared their goods. Everything was held in common. There was a common bursar, one of the administrators of the community. Now, the motives for communal poverty may have been merely practical.

[13:22]

It was the only means of survival in the desert, sort of mutual support for unmarried men. And what we get in the text is that there doesn't seem to be much of an appreciation for poverty as poverty. They don't glorify poverty. In fact, they're looking forward to a great deal of wealth and riches when they return to Jerusalem. Now let us take a look at the institution, the community institution. We'll look at liturgical life, the admission of candidates, the penal code, and government. Their liturgical life we discover from their writings, especially from the writing about the rules of the community, and also the Damascus document. But they celebrated an annual feast of the renewal of the covenant, and that was the Feast of Weeks, or what we call Pentecost. That was their main feast, their big feast. And on the celebration of this feast, they admitted candidates to the group.

[14:27]

This was the feast par excellence of the sect. It was their feast. Very little is known of their daily liturgical service. See, this is their annual service, but very little is known of daily service. However, we do know that there was common reading, reflection, and instruction in the Torah. For instance, the law says that every member was to spend one-third of the nights of the year in vigil. praying and reading the Torah. You know, the whole concept of vigils here. But one-third of the nights of the year in vigil with the Torah. They also had sacred meals. Now there's a lot of dispute here whether every meal was sacred or only special meals were sacred. But these meals were celebrated with bread and wine as the basis of the sacred meal. It may be they were celebrated daily or only on the Sabbath. It may be that every meal was a sacred meal. These sacred meals, however, were an anticipation of the messianic banquet at the end of time.

[15:32]

Only those who were fully admitted to the community could participate in these meals. Some suggest that all the meals in common were sacred and had to be ritually pure according to the law. And for that reason, the candidates, or those who had not been fully accepted, couldn't even help prepare the meals in case they would break some of the ritual laws, some of the laws of purity. Another aspect of their ritual would be bathing. ritual bathing. Now, this is highly disputed. You remember that there are many water cisterns at Qumran, and people suggest that the reason they had such an amount of water is because they had to bathe all the time, literally bathe. Whether or not this is the case is disputed. How often they bathe and for what purpose. Surely, at least they did the ritual bathing of the law. eating poor meals and things like that. Another explanation for all of these cisterns is that if you have this community in the desert, and if it is like 200 people or more, you've got to have good water supply just to support these people.

[16:42]

So there's no indication that just because they have these big cisterns that they emphasize ritual bathing. This whole question of ritual bathing is looked at from various angles. For instance, If I'm not mistaken, it's Masada. They have found a ritual bath. These people apparently had ritual bathing. Now, I don't think at Kumon they have discovered any sort of remains of what you would call a bath itself, you know, where the people would bathe, so that's part of the problem there, too. With regard to admission of candidates, At Qumran, the candidate had to undergo an indetermined postulancy, and then two years of navishat. Now, his postulancy was determined on how close to the Feast of Pentecost or the renewal of the covenant he applied. So, for instance, if he got into the community, applied just after the celebration of the Feast of Pentecost, then his postulancy would last until the next Feast, say, almost a year. Whereas if he came in early, right before the Feast, it would be a very short postulancy.

[17:45]

On the feast, he was then presented to the community by a man called the guardian for acceptance on a trial basis for one year. During this first year, he kept his property and he could not participate in the sacred meetings. The following year, he was again presented to the community, and then he surrendered his property to the bursar, but it was kept for him in case he decided to leave. Finally, on the third the third celebration of the feast, he made a solemn oath to the community and was accepted as a full member of the community. Another point to be made is with regard to the penal code. For infractions of the Torah or community rules, there were degrees of punishment. For instance, there could be total excommunication for a serious breach of the Torah, or for murmuring against the Torah or community. And just for murmuring against the Torah, which was the sacred law, or the community, you could be kicked out.

[18:50]

But besides that, there were degree punishments. For instance, there were days, weeks, two years of excommunication for meals and community exercises, for such things as indecency, for uncouthness, for disrespect, for breaking silence. Finally, let's take a look at the government and the authority and the administration. Now, here again, there's an awful lot of dispute about how to interpret the text. What we see, though, is that there is someone called a guardian, a priest, and a bursar. Now, we're not sure whether these three people are all the same person or not. You know, whether the guardian and the priest are the same thing. They have two separate functions. And whether the bursar, which is another function, is also carried on by the same person. But the guardian, in Hebrew it's mebeker, and this is interesting from the point of view of New Testament structures, this is the Hebrew equivalent to ekiskopos in Greek, or what we would call bishop.

[20:04]

But this guardian was a Levite, and he was known as the master. And his chief duty was instruction. He was sort of a novice master. He was the final arbiter in cases of orthodoxy and right conduct. So he was the one who finally made decisions. Now, the priest function, this person was in charge of all matters concerned with the ritual. So everything about, if there was bathing and the sacred meals, the celebration of the feast, he was in charge of that. The bursar, coped with the practical administration and revenue of the community. He provided for material interests and needs of the community. There was, what most people say, a man who had all of these functions, guardian, priest, and bursar, over the entire community. But the community was subdivided into fifties and into tens, see, in analogy to

[21:09]

the desert experience of Israel. And over every ten people, which was called a camp, there was a guardian priest bursar. Now probably here it's one person because you wouldn't have three people over ten. Besides that, the community council was composed of twelve laymen and three priests. So out of the larger community you had a small council. And this Council represented the 12 tribes of Israel and the three priestly families. That's why it's 12 laymen and three priests. There was also the assembly of the whole community for priests and laymen. And this took care of matters which affected the whole community, like admission of candidates, excommunication, and expulsion. Well, the teacher of righteousness is the founder of this, he's not... there's no office that was continued by... The teacher of righteousness, no, is not an office. It may be the founder, this is disputed.

[22:10]

Or it may have been a prophet who arose after the thing... It may also refer to the messiah in the future. This is one of those terms which is not too clear exactly who he is. But there's not always in the community a teacher of righteousness, like an abbot or something like that, where they have the guardian, the priest, and the bursar. And the guardian would be the head of the monastery, as far as we're able to see in that function? Pretty much so, yeah. Because he has the right to decide on orthodoxy, and that's really the important point, because they're following the Torah. Now I think we're ready to make some comparison with the Monastic Institute, with this sort of background of what the Essenes are all about. First of all, let's look at doctrine. And under the doctrine we want to look at apocalypticism, eschatology, and what we call the parousia, or the coming of the Lord Jesus in glory. Does that make sense?

[23:11]

No, I think there's a little difference between all of these. Well, we'll see. Traditional monasticism's concept of history is that the present is the fullness of time. See, apocalypticism, the present is not the fullness of time. The fullness of time will come when the Lord comes with the Messiah and reestablishes his kingdom. But Christianity says that this is already realized in Jesus Christ, yet he will come again. The cosmic struggle, according to traditional monasticism and Christianity, has already taken place in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has vanquished the devil and all evil powers. The monk is merely reliving in his life that same struggle. You see, it's something that's already realized, it's taken place cosmically, and the monk is really only participating in that struggle.

[24:12]

And so we have this theme of conquering the devil in union with Jesus Christ. For instance, Anthony in the desert, and his struggles in the desert. See the little difference here? That apocalypticism, it's not realized yet. It's still coming. It's very close, these things are. But see, I think the Christian eschatological vision is the reality is already present, and yet it is still to come. But the cosmic battle has already been decided. God has vanquished the devil. For the monk, the Messiah, has already come. But, at the same time, he will return. That whole ambivalence between already and not yet. Traditional monasticism reflects much on the judgment day of God. For instance, in the Rule of Benedict we see the abbot must give an account on the judgment day of God, and a monk is to keep death daily before his eyes. But, in my opinion, the monastic concept of salvation in history is more eschatological than apocalyptic.

[25:20]

Have I made any sense with that distinction? You still have any problem with it? See, in my opinion, at least, apocalypticism means that we are waiting for the cosmic battle, that it is not yet here and we're preparing for it. But eschatology, Christian eschatology, believes that the cosmic battle has taken place in Jesus Christ, and that we are merely participating in that in time, but it's already done. Jesus is already victor. He's already Lord. And besides that, you see, apocalypticism is looking forward to a messiah who will come and lead the people in the cosmic battle. We think the messiah is already here, and we are merely participating in the battle, which he is already victorious. See, remember the story of Anthony. Anthony fought the devils,

[26:21]

because he knew Jesus was already victorious, and his monastic life was nothing more than a manifestation of the victory of Jesus Christ. The victory is already ours, with eschatological view, I think. This is the distinction I'm making. Now, the whole problem of eschatology and apocalypticism is rather complex, and maybe I'm being too superficial about the distinction. But I think that there's a real difference, no matter what terms you use, between the Essene's vision of salvation history and Christian monasticism, because of the person Jesus Christ. Now, there's a lot in common between the two. For instance, the awareness of the supremacy of God, and that only in God is there victory and salvation. This is common. With regard to separation, I think here we can see some good distinctions. Let's take a look at the relationship to the whole.

[27:23]

See, Qumran was a sect. Indeed, the Qumranites were schismatics, in protest to official Judaism, its hierarchy, its temple worship, its calendar. Qumran was in opposition, in open protest to official Judaism. In my opinion, monasticism is not a separatist sect, but is part within a whole. Some try to define monasticism as a protest movement, as we've seen before, against the laxity of the Christians after the Constantinian peace, or against the institutional church. But there is little evidence for this thesis in traditional monasticism. I don't think we've seen it so far in the sources we've looked at, in Anthony and Pecomius. For instance, there's good relationships with the bishops in Anthony and in Pecomius, and there's not a better-than-thou attitude, a purist attitude. And usually, monasticism follows the same liturgical calendar, or at least the calendar is not the reason for being monks, you know, to preserve an ancient calendar.

[28:33]

And we see, for instance, in the Rule of the Master, that the monks went to the parish church for Sunday Eucharist. So they're obviously not in opposition to the institution or sacramental church. In Basil, we see that his whole concept of ascetical life is founded on his ecclesiology, that his community is rooted and grounded in the mystery of the whole church. In the Rule of Benedict, there's no reference to an opposition to institutional and hierarchical church. References show good relationships. A local bishop is to correct a bad abbot or a priest. He has that right and that duty. And in the rule, we find that Benedict follows the Roman custom for singing of hymns and canticles in the office. Another thing is, I don't see any concern for ritual purity among traditional monasticism. This question of withdrawal or separation from the outside, I think, depends upon an ascetic and communal discipline and not on fear of defilement, you know, that you'll be ritually defiled and you can't come back and say the office or celebrate the Eucharist.

[29:48]

The whole concept of separation from the world or flight from the world can be disputed. I don't see it as a primary concern in the rule of Benedict. With regard to desert theology, and comparing this to Christian monasticism, I think the desert mentality is much more oriental than occidental, at least until the 11th and 12th century. The rule of Benedict mentions the desert only in reference to hermits, because, in my opinion, the rule of Benedict's theology is not a desert theology. The Cumanites are definitely a desert theology. But for the Egyptians and Syrians, the northern Egyptians, the desert is the place for combat with the devil in imitation of Jesus Christ. It is also a place of purification. It's not a place of preparation for a final battle, for the final battle is already being waged in the desert. So you're not waiting in the desert for the final battle, you're in the desert and participating in the final battle between Jesus and the devil.

[30:58]

So there is some similarity there. Also the concept of covenant and New Israel. For Poconius, the monk's commitment to God and to the community was a sacred fact, a covenant. The idea of monasticism as the New Israel is strong in Poconius. Remember that Liber Orsinius, the beginning of Baruch? Listen, O Israel. And he's speaking to the monks. The monks are the new Israel. And the community in Bokomian monasticism is... But monasticism is a realization of the apostolic community. I think here we touch upon the idea of a monastery as the Church of Christ. And I think that there is a lot of covenant theology in the Rule of Benedict. But we won't go into that right now. But I see it there, very subtly. With regard to the way of life, first of all, sacred scripture, Qumran emphasized the fidelity to the Torah, and the monks must be constantly reading and meditating upon the Torah, the law, the scripture.

[32:08]

The Torah was the basic law or rule of life for the Essenes. With regard to monasticism, we have a fidelity to the sacred scripture, Old and New Testament, a constant reading and meditating upon it. And the scriptures are the rule for Facomius, Basil, and even the rule of Benedict. Remember, he says, what page of the Old or New Testament is not a sufficient rule of life for us? So here we have the scripture predominates in both Qumran and in Christian monasticism. With regard to celibacy, The celibacy of Qumran was motivated by a desire for ritual purity, to be ready to fight the final war, and was a practical necessity in the desert surrounding. But it seems to me that in Christian monasticism, celibacy is motivated by the New Testament teaching of a singleness of purpose in following Jesus Christ.

[33:10]

It's not just pragmatic, nor is it to prepare to fight the final battle. It is a sign which is given for the sake of the royal reign. And women are not evil, nor is sex evil for the monk, although sometimes this has been an issue. With regard to sharing of goods, Qumran did not see poverty as a good, but shared good was a mean of continuing life in the desert. There doesn't seem to have been what we call ascetical motivation at Qumran of poverty or for sharing of goods. It was merely a form of communism. But for Christian monasticism, One shares goods and is poor out of the desire to give up everything to follow the poor Christ. So it's motivated by the love of Jesus, an imitation of him. It's more than just a sharing of goods, of a communism. Now let's take a look at the community institution, liturgical life.

[34:12]

Qumran had the special annual feast of the renewal of the covenant, Pentecost. If Christian monasticism has a special annual feast, it's Easter. I would remind you of the dialogues of Gregory the Great, where Benedict is in a cave, and a priest comes to him and tells him it's Easter, and so he breaks his fast. because this is an important feast. Also, the Rule of Benedict, Chapter 49, on Lent. Our whole life is a Lent in preparation for Easter. There's a great pastoral tonality in monasticism. We know also that in In Paconian monasticism, Easter was the special celebration. Remember, there were two times a year when everybody got together. The Easter season, to celebrate the Paschal Mystery, and that month in August when it was sort of a general chapter for finances and things.

[35:13]

But it was the Easter celebration. With regard to the daily liturgical services of monasticism, we know a little bit more about that than we do of Kumara. For instance, in Pakomna's tradition, there's common prayer at least every morning and evening, made up of psalmody and reading. And by the time of the rule of Benedict, monks are gathering seven times a day and once during the night. And what they're doing especially is reading the Scripture to one another. Besides that, they're to read and study the Scripture, meditating on it during the work intervals. In the Pacomian monasticism there was at least a weekly colloquium or communal reflection on scripture. We see Qumran monks spending one-third of the nights of the year in vigil, praying and reading the Torah. And vigils is a constant tradition in monasticism. Maybe even the sacred meals of Qumran can be compared to the Eucharistic celebration of monasticism.

[36:17]

Now, whether or not early monks had daily Eucharist is a question, but at least, like, we've seen Pacomians, and in the Egyptian desert, at least on Saturday and Sunday, there was the Eucharist. There is no real equivalent to ritual bathing in Christian monasticism, as far as we know, unless we could say that the washing of the feet of the brothers once a week in the rule of Benedict, when they change their service in the kitchen. This may be a type of ritual bathing, or rebaptism. I think we see many similarities in the admission of candidates. this whole probationary period and the final solemn oath to the community. And it's a longer period than we find in most early Christian monasticism. It's a three-year period. But we don't find that developed in Christian monasticism until the Code of Canon Law in 1917, where it demanded a three-year period of temporary profession. The penal code, I think, is very similar in both traditions.

[37:24]

And the faults are similar. Murmuring, breaking silence, coarseness. For instance, if the rule of the master says, you're not supposed to spit in choir, and if you do, you're punished, that's the same kind of coarseness that the rule of the Kumans would punish somebody for. The authority structure is very similar. For instance, if you look at Qumran, the guardian, and you could see him as the abbot, the guardian and the priest, and the verser as the assailor, who has a very important role to play in Benedictine monasticism. Also, the council of the twelve laymen and three priests in Qumran, and what we call the small council of the seniors in the room, or the total assembly, and the chapter of the community. Now, what lessons can we learn from these observations? First of all, with regard to monasticism and the Church. The Essenes were part of a larger whole, Judaism, just as monasticism is part of a larger whole, the Church.

[38:33]

But I think we have something very important to learn about the relationship of these two by comparison. The Essenes separated themselves from the rest of Judaism. They were a sect. They considered themselves not as an integral part of Judaism, but rather as the remnant of the elect, the faithful, the pure, the authentic Israel. I would suggest that Christian monasticism has often been in danger of considering itself as separate from the whole and in opposition to the whole, in protest. But such an idea is contrary to the mystery of the Church and the whole people of God. Christian monasticism is not and should not be a sect within the Church. This is one of the criticisms I have against a book that just came out a couple of years ago called The Heresy of Monasticism, by Valen Bowler, a Jesuit.

[39:36]

Now, he says he doesn't want to use this term in a pejorative sense, but I don't think you can use the term heresy without having some sort of negative concept. And I really object to this term, you know, the heresy of monasticism, as if it were something which was apart from the Church itself. Monasticism, Christian monasticism, is valid and healthy only insofar as it remains integrated with the whole and yet maintains its identity. Now, I see two dangers for monasticism. First of all, there's a danger of monasticism trying to impose its way of life on the whole church so that the whole church becomes monasticized. So that the monastic ideal becomes the ideal for all Christians. And I think that this is a real danger, and it's not always been withstood. For instance, if you read some of the early fathers, they say that the whole church ought to become monastic. The other danger is that the monastic ideal will become secularized and lose its identity within the whole, just like everybody else.

[40:46]

So that's a danger, too. I don't think either of these solutions should be tolerated, yet I think there are constantly temptations and constantly sins which monasticism has committed, either to try to monasticize a whole church or try to become totally secularized so that there's no difference. within the Church between monks and other people. The Essenes separated themselves from Judaism because they considered themselves pure, the remnant, the elect, the authentic. They were slobs, real slobs. And I think Christian monasticism is constantly in danger of developing this same attitude. The Christian monk is aware of a special election, a special gift. But he must always remember that this is rooted in his baptism, which is common to all. If he is chosen or elected, it's only so that his common election will be specified in a special way. But it's nothing really greater than the common election.

[41:47]

It's merely a specification of what is common. Christian monasticism has delighted in comparing itself with the New Israel, the apostolic community, as we see in John Cashin. But we must always see this in relationship to the whole, not as if monasticism were the Church, the pure Church, and those outside are not. This, again, is a constant danger and temptation, and I'm afraid we don't always overcome this temptation. Christian monasticism has no right to consider itself the authentic expression of the Church. It may be an authentic expression, but it's not the only one. With regard to relationship to the hierarchy, first of all, external hierarchy. Qumran was in schism with regard to the Jerusalem hierarchy, which it considered illegitimate and corrupt. Monasticism has often been in opposition to the hierarchy, as history shows us.

[42:48]

For instance, the political maneuverings of the monks in the disputes between Constantinople and Alexandria. These were really political forces. But the great monastic rule showed no basis for an opposition to the hierarchy. Poconius, Basil, and the rule of Benedict. Part of the temptation to be in opposition to the hierarchy results from the tension set up between the institutional and charismatic dimensions of the Church. Both of these are essential to the mystery of the Church, and one should not suppress the other. With regard to internal hierarchy, at Qumran, the priestly section dominated the community, controlled its thought and its life. Now, Christian monasticism, in origin at least, is a lay organization. And I think, in essence, is a lay organization. It does not have anything to do with sacred orders. But history shows that clerical orders have predominated.

[43:51]

in monasticism, that only priests could be full-fledged monks in the whole period up until just the recent past. Thankfully, this conception is being corrected, but it is still a constant danger, and I have a suspicion it still influences us with regard to the babatial office. It's pretty hard for us to think of an abbot who is not a priest. In theory, maybe we can think about it, but then a lot of the things that the abbot does are really priestly functions. What if we do have an abbot who is not a priest? What kind of picture of an abatial office will this present to us? But you see, the point is that we have to be careful that the clerical hierarchy does not dominate in the community, because Christian monasticism is not clerical in any sense. Clerics can become monks, but they're monks just like anybody else. The Essene sect also defined itself as a protest movement that revolted into schism against the Jerusalem church.

[45:00]

We've seen that monasticism has often been interpreted as a protest movement, has often been in protest and opposition. To me, this is really a delusion and a temptation which is tied up with some of the other reflections that we've made above, the relationship of the Church and monasticism. It's sure that monasticism does have a special witness to play, and so it will protest in some way. But this is a consequence of what it is. It is not by nature a protest movement. Monasticism must also be aware of seeing itself as the pure and authentic Christian, and judging everybody else as sort of lax. And here I think John Cashin, without condemning his conscience, but I think this is a sin which he has committed, at least in his writings, that he says that the Christian monks are the pure, authentic church, and they are keeping on the apostolic church.

[46:03]

Monasticism must build up the body of Christ, not destroy it or set it into opposing camps. With regard to apocalypticism, I think we, just briefly, what I think is the danger here is with all apocalyptic religions is that we become prophets of doom. and say, oh, wait till this world gets judged by everybody. You're going to get your comeuppance sooner or later. And so we sort of stand there as pointing the finger of doom and judgment to the world. Qumran did this. It was apocalyptic. I don't think that we should be apocalyptic in that sense at all. We're apocalyptic in the sense that the church might be apocalyptic, eschatological, but not this prophets of doom and woe betide the world. I think with regard to common life and the sharing of goods, we have to be careful that we don't see our poverty merely as sharing of goods.

[47:07]

Pragmatic. But it is an imitation of Jesus Christ. And there is a beauty in poverty. because it is a way of sharing in the poverty of Jesus Christ. And so we have to be careful of diluting poverty. And I see this a real danger in the modern approach to the vow of poverty. I think what basically is the difference between Christian monasticism and Qumran is the basic difference between Qumran and Christianity. And that's the person of Jesus Christ. That's what really makes the difference. And that, if you read things about Qumran and Christianity, the thing which, when you really get down to it, the only thing that's really different in many things, essentially different, is the person of Jesus Christ. And that's where, you see, the rule of Benedict sums up, I think, the meaning of monastic life so beautifully.

[48:08]

Monastic life, the monastic ideal is the love of Christ. So it is Christ who is the core of monastic life, and that's what's really essentially different about Christian monasticism and kumara. Do you have any observations or questions? Do you see what lessons we can learn, though, from looking at kumara? The dangers involved, and I think that monasticism has succumbed frequently to these dangers. But even there, though, you know, it's not within the nature of the concept of Christian monasticism. And I'd say, you know, you can fall into the dangers, but your rules are always there to call you out, whereas in Qumran, it's written into the structure, the heart of the nation. That's why you study the document, you see at least what is the

[49:12]

the doctrine in the documents. And that's why I think it's very important that we look at these sources that we've looked at to see what is monasticism when it is being trying to be articulated by the people who had some understanding. And I don't see, in Anthony, in Pocomius, in Basil, in the Rule of Benedict, some sort of protest against the world or snobbishness. I do see it in John Gashin, and I do see it in the Rule of the Master. And so there is ... it's even in some of the documents. But, for instance, the Master is not very important, really, in continuing the tradition. Why? Now, John Cashin has had a great influence. Part of the thing that we're trying to do is trying to balance Cashin's influence by some other teachings. Because, as I've mentioned to you, that Cashin and Degas have predominated in our spirituality in the West. And John Gashin definitely has this idea of the pure ethnic church, at least I think it's there.

[50:21]

Any observations, Joel? Okay.

[50:30]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ