We're up to the point where we're talking about cenobitic observances. We looked at different virtues of the cenobitic life, how they looked at their way of life, the goal of cenobitic life, and the different ways. I saw there were two separate ways, cenobitic and anchoritic life. So now we're going to look at the cenobitic observances and as seen by the cenobites. There seems to be a unity of spiritual doctrine in the Cenobites that John Cashin gives to us, but when you come to the practices and observances, there's quite a bit of difference, especially between what we would say the northern Egyptians and the southern Egyptians.

[01:21]

Cashin reports a double source then. He especially talks about the Tavanesiites, or the Bakomian monks. But remember that John Cashin doesn't really know too much about them, and so we sort of suspect what he has to say about them. The other Cenobites that he mentions are the people in Assyria and in Mesopotamia. Now, he probably knew them better because he actually lived in Bethlehem, in Palestine, for two years, in a monastery, in a synovium there. There are certain areas in which these two traditions agree, but there are also areas in which they don't agree. First of all, the liturgical office. Now, I don't know whether you've gone into that with Father Patrick or not, but there's quite a bit of difference between what John Cashin says about Egypt and about what he says about Syria and Mesopotamia. He talks about this especially in the second and the third book of the Institutes.

[02:24]

And the second book is pretty much Egyptian, and the third book is Syria and Mesopotamia. And one of the things that he indicates there, the difference is that in Egypt, and he's talking about the Tabernesians, Pacomian Cenobites, they only have two synaxes a day, in the morning and the evening, and they have a system of 12 songs at each of these hours. Excuse me, Rolando, the Tabernesians, these Poconians, are, what did you refer to the Tabernesians as, Anthony and his monks? No, no, Tabernesian, the Teviad, that's Poconius. Anthony and his monks are around the Nitria, the Stete, and the Desert of the Cells, up in northern Egypt. But when you talk about the Tabernesian, that's Poconius, and the Teviad, that's Poconius. So, for instance, he says in Institute's book 2, the number of psalms is fixed at 12, both at Vespers and at the office of Nocturnes.

[03:27]

Now, whether that's the morning and evening or the evening and the morning hours is another question. During the day there seems to be no reunion for prayer among the Baconian monks or the monks in Egypt, according to what Cashin says. He insists on an attitude of prayer and also sort of a theory of prayer. And he also underlines their discretion, these Egyptians, for they do not care about the quantity of verses but about the intelligence of the mind. Whereas he says that the monks in Syria and in Palestine have these two offices, but they've added the offices, especially of terse, sex, and gnome. And he says that the reason they have done this is so they can continue the system of continual prayer, but by fixing it at particular times in the day. He doesn't really seem to like the Syrian approach to this. So there's a difference then between Egypt and Syria and Mesopotamia and Palestine, according to the liturgical office.

[04:33]

With regard to the theory of continual prayer, there's relatively little in the synoptic writings according to the different volumes that we've set up. Volume 1, which is Institute's book 1 to 4, and then the conferences It was in Conferences 18 to 24, but 19 to 23 specifically, as cenobitic volumes. There's very little in there about continual prayer. And you get the impression, if you take this characterization or category of volumes, that continual prayer belongs to the anchorites, because that comes up in Conferences 9 and 10, which are in the volumes on the anchorites, which is in Volume 3 of Gashen. But in the Institutes of John Cashion, when he's talking about the prayer of the Cenobites, he mentions that he will talk about continual prayer later on. So right away he's tying up this discussion of prayer at fixed times with this continual prayer, even though one's in the Cenobitic and one's in the Anchorated Qualities.

[05:44]

In Institute Book 2 he says, the way in which we can pray as the Apostle directs without ceasing, we shall treat, as the Lord may enable us, in the proper place when we begin to relate the conferences of the elders. So he wants the Cenobite to accept what he's saying to the anchorites, an anchoritic doctrine there. Continual prayer is the precept of the Lord. So the Lord told a parable about the necessity of praying always and not losing heart in chapter 18 of the Gospel of Luke. And Paul makes it an obligation in that famous text from the Thessalonians. Never cease praying. Well, Thessalonians weren't anchorites, and so it's not just an anchoritic doctrine. However, Cashin says that this practice of unceasing prayer seems to have been abandoned by the Cenobites of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine, and this is one of the grievances he has against that.

[06:48]

In Institutes, Book 3 says, either through sloth or through forgetfulness, or being absorbed in business, they spend a whole day without engaging in prayer. So they come back at specific times, keep reminding them that they should pray, but during the day they don't pray too much. And if one believes Cassian, this seems to be the reason why they instituted these prayers of terse, sext, and no. So they didn't have to continue praying all day. With regard to the practice of continual prayer, Gashen knows three different ways of how you should do this, or methods. How do you pray continually? Well, then, he gives three different methods that are presented. For instance, the abbot Isaac, an anchorite, teaches him the marvelous efficacy of the formula, O God, come to my aid, O Lord, make haste to help me. That's in Conferences 9 and 10, where he discusses that. So that's one way of doing it. These are really beautiful pages that are dedicated to this reflection on this text, but not everybody can realize this particular practice.

[08:00]

In Conference 10, Abbot Isaac says, and as this was delivered to us by a few of those who were left of the oldest fathers, so it is only divulged by us to a very few and to those who are really keen or knowledgeable. This method is the perfect and the sublime method, but it is seemingly properly uncorrupted. Now, what that method is, is you take that text, O God, come to my assistance, O Lord, make haste to help me, and you just repeat it over and over again. Everything you do throughout the whole day, you just pray this text. It's sort of like the Jesus prayer, it's the same technique. It's not the same word, but it's the same technique. But it's one specific text, and that's the only text you use throughout the day. So that's one... method of continual prayer with that particular text. This particular style of prayer, do you suppose, is manual work, or doesn't it? Well, I suppose, because if you're doing it intellectually, it's going to be pretty rough to do.

[09:03]

But no matter what you're doing, whether you're eating, whether you're even resting, or whether you're working with your hands, you just keep saying this text over and over again. So, see, one of the things that these fathers were trying to deal with was, how do you realize the injunction, pray always without ceasing? Well, this is one way of doing it. Just say this text over and over again. Now, there's another method, or another technique. Actually, these techniques are all the same, it's just the material that you use is a little different. Gashin had used himself a different practice, one he had learned in Palestine. And what the practice there was, is just to constantly be reflecting on sacred scripture, but not on one particular text, but with a sort of stream of consciousness. You thought about one text of scripture and that brought to mind another text of scripture and you just kept on

[10:06]

going from one text to another text constantly, which is a lot freer and not so disciplined. He says in Conference 10, We have found it even harder to observe this one that Abbot Isaac has given us than that system of ours by which we used formerly to wander here and there in varied meditations through the whole body of scriptures without being tied by any chains of perseverance. So it was a constant rumination on scripture, but you could just move around like you wanted to. And that was what he had learned in Palestine. This seems to be sort of a question of a kind of a Lectio Divina, which is sort of unmethodical, you're just reflecting on texts. It also implies that the monk knows how to read, whereas Abbot Isaac's method can be used by somebody who doesn't even know how to read. So Cassian's method is probably reading sacred scripture and paging back and forth various themes and then reflecting upon them later.

[11:09]

and keeping them in mind, whereas Abbot Isaac's text, you just memorize that text, you don't have to read scripture, you just keep repeating that text over and over again. Then he says there's a third method, and that's the method of the Taberniceites. In Institute Book 3, he says, for manual labor is incessantly practiced by them in their cells in such a way that meditation on the Psalms and the rest of Scriptures is never entirely omitted. So they work, but they're also praying at the same time. And as with it, at every moment they mingle suffrages and prayers. They spend the whole day in those offices which we celebrated fixed times. So they're constantly praying while they work. Here it's a question of repeating a very sharp prayer taken from a psalm or one of the other books of Scripture said by heart. So in Institute Book 3 says, but everyone does the work assigned to him in such a way that by repeating by heart some psalm or passage of Scripture, he gives no opportunity or time for dangerous schemes or evil designs or even for idle talk.

[12:20]

as both mouth and heart are incessantly taken up with spiritual meditation. So, there's... See, all of these are rather similar. But theirs is just taking a song and repeating it by heart and then going to something else. But it's not as freeing as what Cashin had done in Palestine, just sort of roaming around in scripture. Well, what Cashin would have done, I mean, that wouldn't have been done with the Bible in front of him, would it? I get the impression both ways. That you read it with the Bible in front of you, like Lectio Divina, You spend your time that way, or when you're doing something else. See, one of the things he says about Syria and Mesopotamia, when they're working, they're not praying. But he says in the Tabernesian, they do both at the same time, and that's why I give you that accent, because they're working and they're still praying. So I get the impression in Syria and Mesopotamia, sometimes it's with the Bible, sometimes it's just wandering around in your own thoughts and reflections, or three, of course. But you see, this method that the tabernaciates use of using a psalm and repeating it, or some section from scripture, is very similar to Isaac's, but it accepts more diversity.

[13:30]

And also what Gasham likes about it is that it obeys the precepts of the Lord to pray continually. But all of these three techniques, which are really in technique the same, using a scripture text, try to fulfill that injunction of the Lord to pray without ceasing. Excuse me, I have to get off the subject too much. When we were revising the office, It seems like somebody told me that part of the reason for the capitula and the day hours that are supposed to be discussed throughout the day was to give you something to think about as you went your way. I'm sure it does that because all of the readings of scripture are supposed to be that, are supposed to be food for your meditation throughout the day, and most of the day hours, the hymns were selected according to the time of the day, and the readings, too, were greatly selected in order to encourage you at a particular time. Think rather of Compton for a minute. Be sober and watch, because your adversary, the devil, goes about like a going lion, see if he illuminates his devourer.

[14:37]

This was chosen specifically for that hour because of the dangers of the night, and be careful of the devil. So all of those texts were really chosen for the time, all of the hours of office were. We come then, after continual prayer, to the concept of work among the Cenobites. And here we've seen that there's a real difference, just like there is in the prayer, between Tabernaese and Palestine. Because the Tabernese, Taberneseites, whom Cashin praises for being faithful to continual prayer, are also very concerned about work. For instance, he says in Institute Book 4, among the Egyptians whose chief care is for work, they had a real spirituality and almost a compulsion to work, and, of course, Cashin praises them for that. They work more than the monks of Palestine, who have renounced the search for continual prayer under the pretext that they are occupied with work.

[15:41]

This is sort of paradoxical, but the people in Palestine don't even work as much as the Taberneseites, because they say, we've got to stop and pray occasionally. On the other hand, they don't pray all the time, because they say, we've got to work sometime. Cassian praises the Egyptian monks because they've combined the two. They're always praying, they're always working. So he says about the people in Palestine, so that constant prayers may be offered to God at the appointed times, and yet the spiritual duties being completed with due moderation, the necessary offices of work may not be in any way interfered with. So it's necessary to work at one time, play at another time, and Gashem doesn't like that. In Book 2 of the Institutes, it's a question then of the Tavaneseites. They work continually while they pray. So we read in Book 2, they allow no time to pass idly without the performance of some work.

[16:47]

Almost get an impression that they've got the Puritan work ethic. It's busy, busy, busy all the time. are again, and therefore they supplement their prayer by the addition of labor. Less slumber might steal upon them as idlers." So while they're praying, they're continuing to work. And if you recall, when we looked at Pocomelos, you got that impression that during prayer they were weaving knapsacks and making baskets and always keeping busy. And that's why Benedict, you see, in his rules, has nothing to be kept in the oratory, because he doesn't like that tradition, apparently. For as they scarcely enjoy any time of leisure, so there is no limit to their spiritual meditations. The monks of Palestine, they don't begin their work until sunrise. And so it says in Yesterday Book 3, till sunrise when they could without harm be ready to read or to undertake manual labor. So during the night they're not working. They can start when the sun rises.

[17:49]

Whereas the Pacomians continue to work all through the night and all through the day. They're working all the time. So it institutes book two. But also with anxious minds they examine into those sorts of work which not even the darkness of night can put a stop to. As they hold that they will gain a far deeper insight into subjects of spiritual contemplation with purity of heart, the more earnestly that they devote themselves to work and labor. Their work is a real spirituality for them. And they think that they're going to gain more purity of heart the more they continue to work. There's a very high regard for work here. And even after the Office of Vigils, the people in Egypt don't remain idle. Nor do any of them give themselves up any further to rest and sleep, till when the brightness of the day comes on the labors of the day, the labors of the day succeed the labors and meditations of the night." Don't they just go from the meditations and labors of the night to the meditations and the labors of the day?

[18:52]

Isn't that a hard way of looking at life? Thus the meaning of work is not inspired merely by the desire of a rough asceticism. but because these men are persuaded of the spiritual value of work. Do you think that the spiritual value of work they give to us kind of makes all this work, prayer, sort of a balanced life? There's certainly a better integration, it would seem. They don't see any conflict. between prayer and work. Because they're doing both of them at the same time. While they're formally praying, they're working with their hands. And when they're working at the bakery or somewhere, they're praying. So there's a real integration of their life. It's not a set time for this and a set time for that. It just sort of flows all the time. I mean, that sounds balanced and preferable. Desirable? Well, I think that there's something very balanced about it, but it sounds to me like a good, awful monotonous.

[20:01]

I mean, there's very little variety. Well, I'm thinking, you know, so perhaps we see a balance like, you know, prayer, work, a little bit of recreation, reading. That doesn't quite compare to what Father Benedict... What these men were struggling with is the admonition of the scripture to pray constantly. I think that we understand that admonition a little differently. If you remember in Clement of Alexandria, you've taken him with Patrick, we sail the sea hymning, we plow our fields of praise, and that very work itself is the praise and the hymn. Our Christian life as life is a prayer, and so I don't think we have to fixate on a particular formula, but these men were struggling with that. And just like the Jesus prayer is a realization, trying to realize that admonition to pray always. But I don't recommend the Jesus prayer to too many people, nor do I recommend some of these techniques of these early fathers.

[21:06]

To me, it's too compulsive and too limiting. It is through work that a young monk can acquire humility of heart. See, this is where I think there's a real insight, though. See, their work is their spirituality. It's not in opposition to their desire for the purity of heart. For instance, he is obliged to habituate himself to work and toil. so as to prepare with his own hands, in accordance with the Apostle's command, a daily supply of food, either for his own use or for the wants of strangers, and that he may also forget the pride and luxury of his past life, and gain by grinding toil humility of heart. So a number of reasons for work here, so that you can supply for your own needs, so that you can take care of the needs of a stranger or to help the poor, and then also to overcome the pride and luxury of your farmer life by a grinding humility of heart.

[22:14]

a spiritual exercise, which is a purifying exercise. I think this is a very fine insight. And I think that this is in the rule of Benedict too. That work is not just something to keep you occupied, though what Benedict says has that dimension to it. But it is also a purifying and sanctifying thing. That's where it does come very close to the Puritan work ethic. Some people have condemned the monks for a Puritan work ethic. Calvin only went back to the ancient monastic tradition of a work ethic. It is through work that one develops purity of heart. Again, we read in Book Two, as they hold that they will gain a far deeper insight into the subjects of spiritual contemplation with purity of heart. the more earnestly that they devote themselves to work and labor. They're going to get a deeper insight into the goal of their life, purity of heart, the better they work.

[23:23]

Also, work is a sign of fervor. in Institute Book One. For he will be proved to be the more ardent in purity of heart for spiritual progress and the knowledge of divine things, in proportion as he is the more earnest in his zeal for obedience and for work." You know, one of the things that strikes me is this whole problem that has arisen between the opposition between contemplation and work. that work takes us away from our prayer, from our purity of heart. And the best thing to do, if you could, would be to do away with work and just sit and meditate and pray all the time. See, I see that this is quite different than that. That work is part of purification and sanctification, part of your spirituality. also work permits the Senebite to practice charity, and this has always been sort of one of the motivations for work.

[24:24]

We saw that in Anthony, you know, he worked to support himself and also to support the poor people, and this is a dual motivation of monastic work. In Conference 18, The Cenobite eagerly strived to go beyond the fixed rule of daily work, that whatever is not wanted for the sacred purposes of the monastery may be distributed at the will of the abbot, either among the prisons, or in the guest chamber, or in the infirmary, or to the poor. The others, the cerebeyants, that whatever the day's gorge leaves over may be useful for extravagance once or else made by through the sin of covetousness." Notice the difference between a Serebaite and a Cenobite. The Serebaite wants to live luxuriously, he's covetous, he wants to possess things. The Cenobite doesn't hold things. What he needs, he uses, but then gives away his surplus to the poor. These are the main lines of the Cenobitic life that we see in John Gashin.

[25:36]

Prayer, both formal prayer and continual prayer, and then work. Now we're ready to take a look at Cenobitism as viewed by the Anchorites. We've got to put aside the personal reflections of Cassian when we take a look at the Anchorites to see how the Anchorites themselves looked at cenobitic life without the prejudices of John Cassian. Now, this is rather difficult to do since the Anchorites don't spend too much time reflecting upon the cenobitic life. They're just not going to do that. Abbot Serenus, though, for instance, who was an Anchorite, recounts the history of a cenobium of nuns. And in another place, he mentions a synobium of eight or ten monks. In these texts, there is no consideration of a cenobitic life, however, as a prep school or a half-house for the desert. This is not Abbot Serenus was an anchorite. That's not his idea of what a Cenobian is.

[26:39]

This is just, well, the hotbed where they're preparing people for the desert. That doesn't come up. Also, Abbot Nestorius is very important because of some of his remarks. He was an anchorite on one of the desert islands formed by an earthquake near the city of Panephas, Panephasis. and was very near to the great monastery where Penufimus was abbot. And this, in turn, was near the area of the town of Dioclos, where there were a number of Cenobians, as we've seen before. So he was quite familiar with the Cenobitic life. Now, Abbot Nestorus sees the necessity of what they call the practical life, in Greek it's the praptike, and this is something which comes up a great deal in Evagrius of Ponticus and in the whole theory of contemplation. The practical life as opposed to the contemplative life. This practical life is necessary for contemplation.

[27:44]

For instance, He says, whoever would arrive at this theoretical knowledge, that's what contemplation is called, it's usually called the theoretical life. Now, whoever wants to arrive at the theoretical life must first pursue practical knowledge with all his might and may. For this practical knowledge can be acquired without the theoretical. But the theoretical cannot possibly be gained without the practical. Now, this is a classical distinction, the distinction between the practical life and the theoretical life. And see, what one of the traditional arguments is that the practical life, well, that's a synodium. And you need to live the practical life before you go to theoretical life, the contemplation of the desert. Now, Abbot Nestorus does say, you can't acquire the theoretical without the practical, though you can live the practical without the theoretical. But now, what does he mean by these terms? It seems that Abbot Nestorus admits that the cenobitic life is an actual or an active life, and more or less the practical life, when he gives advice to prepare for the solitude by living in a cenobia.

[28:57]

So he says, yes, you can prepare for the theoretical life by living in a cenobia. That would be practical life. But that's really not his point. Now, that's just only one way of preparing for it. There are many ways of practicing the practical life, or what he calls the active life. For instance, he says, the practical life then, which rests on a double system, is distributed among many different professions and interests. And what he goes on to do is to enumerate these various professions. And one of the ways of the practical life, which leads to the theoretical life, in ad nestris, is the anchoritic life itself. For instance, in Conference 14 says, some make it their whole purpose to aim at the secrecy of an anchorite and purity of heart, as we know that in the past Elijah and Anisha and our own day the blessed Anthony and others who followed with the same object were joined most closely to God by the silence of solitude.

[30:04]

Notice what he's saying. The anchoritic life itself can be the preparation for deeper contemplation. The anchoritic life. The anchoritic life itself. See, he has this idea that there's a practical life and a theoretical life. Okay, that's fine. He says, now the practical life, how do you... you've got to live the practical life before you can go into the theoretical life. Well, where do you start? the synovium is one possibility. But he even goes so far as to say, well yes, but the anchoritic life is also one possibility. You see, the point is, he's not equating practical with synovium and theory with anchorite, because the practical itself, the anchoritic life itself, can be the practical life, which will lead to a deeper theoretical life. Am I confusing the ocean? itself allows them to practice practical labor. Thus, it is not absolutely necessary to pass through a synovium.

[31:09]

Well, if you start in the anechoic life as a practical application, where are you going from there? Well, you see, that's why the point is that The practical life is not equivalent to synovium and theoretical life is not equivalent to anchoritic life, because you can practice the practical life in the anchoritic life. So see, that's what the point is, they're not synonymous words. And another thing he says is that some have given all their efforts and interest towards the system of the brothers and the watchful care of the Sanobian. As we remember that recently Abbot John, who presided over a big monastery in the neighborhood of the city of Stounis, and some other men of like merits, were eminent with the signs of the apostles. So he cites a person who lived the practical life, Hal,

[32:11]

by being an abbot over a synopion. And this was his practical life which led him to the theoretical life. It's not the synopitic life in that text which is the practical life, but the responsibility of governing a synopion. And Abbot Nestor has thought that this was probably the best way of learning the practical life. to be an abbot in a synodium. Not to be a monk in a synodium, but to be an abbot. Because there you really dealt, and that's where you really learned the virtues, if you were an abbot. There's no doubt that you would learn virtues there. Other professions that he mentions, which were practical, leading towards the theory, don't belong necessarily to the Cenobitic Code. So, for instance, then he gives a list. So everybody has to go through the practical. Now what is this practical? It could be the Sanogli, it could be the anchoritic life itself, it could be being an abbot of a monastery, but it also has certain aspects that you have to do.

[33:19]

For instance, some are pleased with the kindly service of the guesthouse. You can do this in a semi-hermitage. or in a synodium, or you can even do it in the church in Alexandria, like we read in Palladius. Somebody did it there. Now, there's the guest master of the church in Alexandria. So, this is one way of learning the practical life, to be a guest master. Some choose to serve the sick, so you're a hospitaler. Others devote themselves to intercession, which is offered up for the oppressed and the afflicted, so they're people who pray for people. Or they give themselves up to teaching, or they give alms to the poor. See, there's all sorts of ways of doing the practical life, and none of them are really synonymous with the cenobitic life. In modern terminology, we would say that if one wished to prepare for contemplation, one should either go ahead and adopt the arabidical life, that's the way he's going to prepare for contemplation, or he should become an abbot of a monastery,

[34:23]

or he should be a brother of the Christian schools or a hospitaler. And this will prepare him, this will give him the practical knowledge so that he can go into the theoretical. See, the theoretical isn't necessarily equated with empiric again. See, that's where the problem comes up, is equating these things. One can hardly conclude that Nesteros considered it an inferior form of monastic life, that is, the cenobitic life, because he, in this long list, he doesn't even mention cenobitic life. Or that he identified cenobitic life with the various activities that he enumerated. For instance, this list of practical ... the way of realizing the practical life by being a guest master, taking care of the sick, praying for others, teaching, giving alms to the poor. Be careful that you don't say, oh, well that's what Cenobites do, because that's not his point either.

[35:25]

Okay? Another thing about Nestoros is that he's not an advocate of a change in profession. In Conference 14 he says, it is good and profitable for each one to endeavor with all his might and mane to attain perfection in the work that he has begun according to the line which he has chosen as the grace which he has received. And while he praises and admires the virtues of others, not to swerve from his own line which he has once for all chosen. Now in that text, so for instance, you take care of the sick, in order to lead the theoretical life, you don't have to stop taking care of the sick. That practical experience is going to lead you to the theoretical life. And this theory is pretty much the theory of, I think, the Dominicans and the Jesuits, who have combined action and contemplation.

[36:33]

One flows in and out of the other. Again he says, "...for in many ways men advance towards God, and so each man should complete that one which he has once fixed upon, never changing the course in his purpose, so that he may be perfect in whatever line of life his may be." What he's suggesting is that you don't shift around. You don't start one thing and then shift to another thing, but that you be faithful in what you've begun and in what you're doing. There you realize the first step of the practical life and leads to the theoretical life. And so consequently, you don't go from the Cenobium to the anchoritic life, because you're not doing what you have begun to do. You're not persevering. You're not being faithful. There's no stability. Thus, it seems as though the Anchor Vidi approach, at least by Nestorus, agrees with the Cenobites, even though he may not understand the Cenobitic doctrine itself.

[37:46]

But he certainly believes that you don't shift around from one way of life to another. In effect, what he's doing is saying that there's a diversity of monastic vocations, each with its own proper perfection, each which leads to God on its own path. and one is to remain in his own style of life which he has originally adopted. There is, however, a case of passing from the synovatism to the anchoritic life, and this is treated a couple of times in the conferences by the anchorites. It's also the problem that Germanus and Cassian had, because they've been Cenobites in the grotto of the Nativity at Bethlehem, and now they have come to Egypt and they wanted the anchorites. So it is something that they have to deal with. There are a number of occasions where people in the desert had been Cenobites and had then become anchorites, besides just the question of Germanus and Cassian.

[38:49]

But in general, it seems as though the anchorites say, you should not pass from one to the other. And they even say that there's a fourth kind of monks, which are the worst kind of monks, in a way. And those are people who have left the Cenobium and have become false hermits. They were neither good Cenobites, and they haven't become good hermits. In Conference 18 we read, There is, however, another and a fourth kind of monks, which we have lately seen springing up among those who flatter themselves with the appearance in the form of anchorites. and who in their early days seem, in a brief fervor, to seek the perfection of the synobian, but presently cool off, and as they dislike to put an end to their farmer habits and faults, and are not satisfied to bear the yoke of humility and patience any longer, and scorn to be in subjection to the rule of the elders, look out for separate cells, and want to remain by themselves alone, that as they are provoked by nobody,

[39:54]

they may be regarded by man as patient, gentle, and humble." They're building a satta. These people who didn't get along in the Cenobium, they didn't learn anything there, they didn't acquire any virtues, so they run off to the anchorite, the anchor heretic life, and they're really false monks. They haven't learned patience anywhere. It appears that the anchorites, although they themselves see that their life is more sublime than the Cenobites, admit that there is two different forms of monastic life, Cenobitic life and Anchoritic life, and that Cenobitic life is not seen as a preparation for the Eremitic life, or that the Anchoritic life is the necessary consequence of the successful Cenobitic life and the ideal which Cenobites should be moving towards. Also, they don't want people to shift back and forth, but to accept their own vocation.

[40:58]

If one does change, it's going to be a major upheaval in their monastic way of life, because it's a change of method, a change of goal. It's just a complete change. It's a different form of life. So I think that we see that both the Anchorites and the Cenobites are pretty much in agreement on that part. that one doesn't flow into the other, and that you have to be very careful about changing. Now we come to John Cashin's thought himself. And very briefly what the problem is here, John Cashin and Germanus had been Cenobites, and they had promised to go back to Bethlehem after they had visited Egypt. They got to Egypt and they liked what they saw. Now how were they going to break their vow about going back to Palestine? That's where they develop, Christians seem to develop a theory, well the anchoritic life is more perfect. And it's the obvious step from the cenobitic life, that after you've lived in the cenobium, gained the perfection, all the perfection you require there, then the obvious thing to do is to move on into the cenobite, into the anchoritic life.

[42:13]

So you see how he's developing his theory for his own situation. And so he speaks to a number of people in the desert trying to solve this dilemma, this crisis of conscience, and according to what he hears from the desert monks, he interprets them as saying, well, yes, the anchoritic life is more perfect, don't worry about not going back to Palestine. And so, for instance, he appeals to Abbot John on this. Whereas Abbot John really isn't saying what Gashin puts in his mouth about saying that the anthropocentric life is more perfect. And so that's why it's very difficult in John Gashin to sort these things out. But if you just remember that John Gashin has a prejudice in the first place, or a personal problem, you can see why he will develop this theory of the anthropocentric life as being more perfect. Do you have any questions or observations about this?

[43:22]

There's no sense of going to the various texts of John Cashin on his own position. Was Cashin rationalizing or was he sincere? Well, I think he was sincere but he was also rationalizing. That seems to be so obvious that he's trying to find an excuse not to go back to Palestine. And if he's not doing that, you wonder if he's not being a little arrogant. That after two years in the synovium, he thought he had gained all the perfection of the synovium and then could go on into the desert. That sounds a little arrogant to me. Well, after two years, you know, try it. Sounds also wishy-washy. Well, you see, and he was confounded with this, that he felt that he was being sort of drawn into something, where he had already made a stable commitment to another place, and so his stability was giving away, and how can you explain this?

[44:32]

How can you solve your conscience? And so he presents this theory. But the point of Leroy's article is that that theory that he presents is not what you really see when you look into the text, especially the Cenobites themselves. That's not the impression you get, that they don't see their way of life as merely a preparation for the anchoritic life. It's the Kenyo kind of a pretty much of a widespread attitude, though. Very much so, and it's still very much with us. I mean, is that resulting from Kenshin? I think so, yes. And see, Leroy is attacking a sacred cow in many areas, because many people maintain this, and they even quote the rule of Benedict. They say that Benedict saw it this way. I'm not so convinced that Benedict saw it this way. He doesn't necessarily say the synovium is a prep school, but he does say that unless you can live a good, perfect life in the synovium, don't start imagining that you're going to succeed in the desert. And I think that that's a very good psychological principle, and fits into the cenobitic and anchoric tradition of John Cashin.

[45:38]

But other people have said, well no, Benedict is approving John Cashin's theory. Well, you can see where they would get that if captions quoted in the rule or a source of the rule. And I get the impression that Benedict... Well, one could get the impression it's kind of ambiguous. He says, persevering in the monastery till death. But someplace else he says... What did you just quote? In chapter 1 he talks about those who have been tried in the battle line with their brothers and have been proven strong enough to go down into the desert to fight on their own. But doesn't that seem like that's a point that... I mean, it's kind of like saying, when you become perfect, you can leave, which is a realization that, you know, that life is going to be constantly presenting difficulties. And that Benedict's saying, in so many words, will go in, you know, like, go in your purpose.

[46:40]

Which will never be. Yeah, which will never be. I can see that interpretation, but you can see where this text has been the basis for a number of different interpretations, and where it's been a text which has been greatly disputed. You know, what was Benedict's own understanding of the eremitic life? Another thing that comes into play there is that his statement in Chapter 1 about the fortissimum genus. See, the Cenobites are the fortissimum genus. Well, that proves it. He's saying that the cenobitic life is the stronger type of monks, the best kind of monks, because that's translated in various ways. Well, studies have also shown that he doesn't mean that at all. What he means is that they're the most numerous kind of monks. So it's a real problem, what Benedict's position was. I think that this study of John Gashin throws new light upon it, because it helps us see that even in John Gashin, Gashin had misrepresented the desert tradition.

[47:44]

Now, Benedict may have been an inheritor of this misrepresentation, but it's not so clear that he accepted it so wholeheartedly. It would seem that if a man was writing a rule, and the ultimate object of people who are following this rule were to become hermits, he would write a more direct preparation of that entity as a rule. And, you know, to see his rule just as a preparation, and this would really be seen all through his rule, and it just doesn't seem to be. I don't see it that way either, Mike. In history, then, you get into the 11th and 12th century, and there you find A real return to the hermitage mentality. The Valambrosians, the Salvastrinians, the Camaldolins, the Cistercians, all of these to a great extent are a return to a desert mentality, an anchoritic mentality.

[48:46]

And so, for instance, the Camaldolese, and they're one of the few who've tried to do it, and I suppose they have a peculiar problem with it, a synobium, hermitage, recluse type of life all combined, so that you can move from the synobium to the hermitage and back from the hermitage to the synobium, or you can eventually go to be a recluse, completely separate. And their whole structure of life is just that kind of intermovement between the two forms of life. Well, according to the monks in John Cashin, the Cenobites and the Andrites, they oughtn't try it, because they're just going to end up in frustration, because it's two separate ways of life, and you're trying to live two things at the same time. And this, I think, explains a lot of the problems of the 11th, 12th century reforms. They were trying to do something that John Cashin thought could be done, but that the people John Cashin was based on didn't think could be done. And who was wiser in this, you might ask.

[49:51]

And so that's why I think there are some peculiar problems with the Kamaldolins and with these reforms, which of course petered out in the long run. But then I see, like, the Cistercian Reform is a reform which goes back to a desert anchoritic mentality, but instead of having anchorites in cells, like the Kamaldolins do, they're anchorites in communities. They're really hermits in community, their whole mentality. Most of their monasteries are called deserts, or hermitages. The Black Benedictine tradition as such has not gone in for this too much, and that's why in our own constitutions now where it talks about a Cenobite can become a hermit for a while. I think this was done under pressure of a lot of people moving in this direction today. But I think there's also a danger in this because it's a confusion of the purpose of your life and the goal of your life and the meaning of your cenobitic life or your anchoritic life.

[51:00]

And I feel rather strongly that there's a lot of confusion on this in the renewal of monastic life today. trying to be both hermit and cenobite at the same time, and always sort of a longing towards the hermitage as if it were the more perfect way of life. I think it's legitimate for a person to want to be an anchorite, but when they do that, recognize that that is a unique form of life, and it's going to have its own special trials and problems. One of the things I sort of resent, I ought to turn this thing off, I suppose, but one of the things I sort of resent is people sort of exploiting a synovium in order to live an anchoritic life. So they have all the securities of a synovitic life, and I don't think that they realize the meaning then of the anchoritic life and its own trials and crucifixion.

[52:11]

Now maybe I'm too strong on that point, but you know, I'm tempted to do it myself, to live on the fringe of the community and enjoy all the security and the benefits of the community, but not the crucifixion among your brothers. Maybe it's not appreciating the similitude. In what way, Joe? Well, you know, speaking for myself in terms of being in Antwerp, I just don't see myself in this situation at all. It's the developing of the community and working within the community to build a community. And to me this kind of excludes an aeromedical life. So I think that our way of life is our realization of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. and it's both crucifixion and resurrection. What I fear, or maybe my false judgment is, that some people would like to take the resurrection of both and the crucifixion of neither.

[53:19]

And this is why I think there's a real danger. So that you take the joys of sanhedrinic life, the support of prayer and the security of meals and things like that, But then you leave the burden of working and struggling with your brothers, but you can go contemplate and enjoy the resurrection of the desert, and not suffer the crucifixion of solitude and loneliness. Not that it would just come because you spent two or three hours in a hermitage, but because you spent months in real solitude and real loneliness, in years. That's where the crucifixion comes out. I have a suspicion I'm being too hard on certain people in this kind of judgment, but this is my problem with it. It seems to me that it's exploitation. You're not suffering the real crucifixion of either way of life, nor the responsibilities of either way of life.

[54:23]

You're talking about long-term? Well, I think that to be a hermit, you should be a herft. And to be a cenobite, you should be a cenobite. I could see the community supporting a monk that wanted to go out for a week, two weeks, or something like that. even for the sake of studies, you know, if not, you know, if not for his own personal growth or insight to come back and plant something else, I'd have no trouble with that. But, you know, in the long term, months or years, I don't think that's... I don't see that as proper, of course. Now, I'm not... I don't really know, but this is the way... Why? What do you see wrong with it? What don't you like about it? Well, first of all, I don't think it's exactly being a hermit, that you can come back like that, and I don't see it as the synovium way of life, where you live and work and agonize with each other, and grow together. I don't see it as either. I don't see it as really an involvement or a total giving to either one.

[55:30]

My only caution to my own thought is that it's obvious that people like the Carthusians have been rather successful and they have tried to see the benefits of the anchoritic life at the same time living close enough together so that they have the support of one another, for instance they have common office together, or that somebody is there to fix their meals and take care of certain things like that. And I think that this is legitimate, which frees them, because the extreme hermit, and that's what Basil has against him and other people. He's got to be so concerned about what he's doing every day, where he's going to get his food, how he's going to eat and drink and take care of things, whereas this is taken care of in his cenobitic life. And this is one of the gifts of cenobitic life. You don't have to worry about those things. But the hermit has to worry about those things. On the other hand, he's compensated for by his in-depth intimacy with Christ in contemplation.

[56:31]

I know I still have to do a lot more thinking on this, and try not to be so prejudicial in some of my judgments of what's going on, but I have to admit that sometimes I get the impression that people want it and don't want it at the same time. I think on order, like say the Carthusians, I have something very much in their favor, is that their reason for existence, or when they wrote their rule, or the Constitutions wrote this, as part of their reason, you know, for their very existence, to have this in mind. And I think this kind of makes them legitimate, that their very foundation ... Right, and they have an ancient tradition, and maybe they successfully blended something which the people in John Gashin couldn't blend or couldn't see. So there is this development in evolution and insight. And so I don't think that we can say, well, this is not a legitimate tradition. But they're going to have, I think, special problems.

[57:35]

They're going to have special problems. You know, you would say within the entire Federation that if we tried to do that now, our schools would fall apart, you know. Well, see, we've accepted into the Federation the Karnal beliefs. I mean, I should say perhaps our tradition here in the States, you know, if we try to live a life like that, our schools couldn't exist on part-time, our separation like that. Yeah, well, I don't know if we should make our schools the basis for whether it's good or not. To me, that's not the criterion. I mean, if a thing ... maybe we should criticize our schools in relationship to our theory of anastasis. Oh, that's not what I meant. I meant ... the fact is we do have schools, as an apostolate. And if we tried to live, say, a Carthusian type of life where the two are combined, we would have to change our repository.

[58:36]

Oh yeah, I see that, but then... No, I don't think that. They don't exist for the school. If, in principle, we should live a Carthusian type of life, then I think the schools have to go. Right, right. I don't think that we have to live a Carthusian type of life. No. I just don't see it. Not at all. The next time, possibly we will continue with Kashin, if I have the chance to work up some things on how it's used by the rule of Benedict, because I think now that we're prepared to do that and be more discerning about the rule's use and endorsement of Gashen. Otherwise, we'll probably take Basel. I'm not sure what we'll do for sure.

[59:15]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ