Well, theoretically, looking at the rule of Benedict should be a great summary for us, but I don't offer a grand synthesis. Instead, I have a few reflections on some portions of the rule, which might relate to some topics that we've discussed, and then I invite your comments, either on the chapters that I have chosen or on things that you yourself have come up with, in line with some of the issues that we've raised the past few days. I think what must be obvious at this point is that it's very difficult to read the Rule of Benedict in the same way after reading the things that we've looked at, in the same way that one reads it before one does that kind of investigation. You begin to realize that behind every word and phrase of the Rule of Benedict lies a whole wealth of tradition, not only the Rule of the Master, but all the stuff that precedes the Master. And you begin to realize there's a whole vocabulary of technical terms that we're dealing with here that we've got to try to come to grips with, both to understand Benedict's source and to understand what he does with it, because he certainly does more than just collect everything and write it down.

[01:17]

He is shaping the material, just like John Cashin is, and just like we do when we read The Rule of Benedict. Well, you're all aware of the issues involved in trying to read the rule today and issues of interpretation, so we needn't go into that. I guess I might as well jump in and mention a few points that have struck me which might fuel our conversation and enable you to kick in what you found. What I'll do is stick pretty much to the themes that I've brought up in the past few talks, and that way we won't try to work our way through the entire rule in an hour's time. So first I'd like to say a couple of things about the thing I opened with, and that is this business of integrity of body and spirit and the idea of transformation of the monk through prayer. In a way, this is kind of the reverse of the proctique, because when we read The Life of Antony, we saw someone who was doing all of those bodily labors and disciplines, but the result was that something came from inside outward.

[02:33]

So you do the proctique to affect this kind of inner and spiritual change, but that in turn shows itself in an outward manner. And I think that's what was so remarkable about chapter 14 of The Life of Antony. was the way it described his spiritual transformation as manifest in his very bearing, his face, the fact that he seemed not to have aged despite 20 years in the fortress. This whole idea of integration of body and soul are related to a primarily Eastern patristic conception of the goodness of creation and the notion of redemption as restoring creation. and we talk some about resurrection and so on. A noteworthy thing about Benedict which is often observed is his own respect for this integrity of body and of spirit, and his attention to the outward aspects of monastic conversatio.

[03:39]

The prologue is full of it, and you've all gone through that business. I'll just point out one thing about that that I find striking, and you may well have marked in your books too, but go through there sometime and circle, either mentally or on your page in a pencil, all of the references to sight and to sound. It's remarkable. Every other line, at least in the first portion of the prologue, is dealing with something that you see or something that you hear, and it's a very clever alternation of those senses throughout the first part of the prologue. That's a commonplace. There are other examples of this kind of whole conception of the person in Benedict. Just a couple little ones before I get to the one I really want to talk about. The fact that the abbot is to be living example of all of these things, in his actions as well as in his teaching. Chapter 4, the tools of good works, all of this is the work of the praktike and all of this is to achieve that kind of inward transformation which manifests itself in an outward fashion.

[04:54]

Same thing for the chapter 5 on obedience. But it's in chapter 7 on humility that I think, at least I find, the greatest echo of this business that I was trying to pull out of the life of Antony. The first thing to note is, of course, the root of this chapter in John Cashin, at least what we call the ladder of humility or the steps of humility. As was pointed out the other night, in Cashin, this is not given as a ladder which is progressive, but as a series of traits attributed to the humble. And it's the master who turns it into the ladder which is familiar to us in Benedict. And the language that the Master and Benedict used, I think, will begin to be very resonant to us after what we've looked at. The ladder erected is our life on earth.

[05:58]

What is our life on earth? But the life of the praktike. We may call our body and soul the sides of this ladder. There we have that kind of integration, that goal of wholeness. into which our divine vocation has fitted the various steps of humility and discipline as we ascend." Now, at this point, discipline should have a resonance to us from our encounter of the word in the life of Antony, where the English translation keeps translating ascesis, by discipline, and by our encounter with the practice in Cassian, which is very often in Cassian term disciplina, discipline. So Benedict's steps of humility, based on the Master and on Cassian, come right out of that tradition of the practicae, and so too, I think, does his goal. First I want to read a little snippet from Cassian's Conference 14, to which I referred the other day.

[07:04]

Apparently what the Master is doing is taking the indications of humility in the fourth book of the Institutes, and interpreting them according to a statement that Cashin makes in Conference 14. And that's how we have these traits turned into the latter, which is progressive. This is Chapter 2 of Conference 14. Practical knowledge, practicae, can be acquired without theoretical, meaning contemplative. But theoretical cannot possibly be gained without practical. For there are certain stages, so distinct and arranged in such a way that man's humility may be able to mount on high. And if these follow each other in turn, in the order of which we have spoken, man can attain to a height to which he could not fly if the first step were wanting. That seems to be the basis for this idea of a progressive ladder of humility.

[08:11]

Now we've talked about the problem with systems. We recognize the limitations, the imposition of structure, ranking and so on, but despite that, I think there's something very impressive in what the Master and Benedict do, and that is how they reach the twelfth step of humility, which has been an interest of mine for a while, and I've just never had the time to really sort the thing out. Devaugues and other commentators point out that the first degree of humility and the twelfth are very much related. because they both discuss internal and external aspects of humility. Now, the difference between the two is that in the first step, the issue is controlling one's actions. It's a matter of fear of the Lord, and therefore responding to that fear by saying, I won't do this, I won't do that, I will control this, I will control that.

[09:13]

That's the emphasis on the external. Now the difference in the twelfth step is that now the humility is not something which is to be acquired by control of the body, but the humility is something which is manifest. And so it's a movement not from outward to inside, not controlling the body so as to achieve this goal of humility. Now the humility is indeed and inner possession and quality, which inevitably shows itself outwardly. Now, maybe I'm reading more into this, but this is kind of how I look at it. So that we reach the twelfth step. The twelfth step of humility is that a monk always manifests humility in his bearing no less than in his heart, the implication seeming to be that it is rooted in the heart at this and then manifest in his bearing, coming from the inside to the outside, as with Antony, so that it is evident at the work of God, the oratory, monastery, garden, on a journey, in a field, anywhere else.

[10:29]

And then it describes what traits of the monk's posture would exemplify this. Benedict then goes on to say that having achieved that state, having mounted all of the steps, It's a short step to the goal, which is the perfect love of God, which casts out fear. Now, we talked about Cassian's description of purity of heart as also being understood as charity. And what is Christian charity but the perfect love of God, which Benedict discusses? So therefore, if we want to be kind of tricky with the tradition, we might rewrite Benedict and say, after mounting all of the steps of humility, the monk arrives at purity of heart. What Evagrius would call apatheia, Cassian calls purity of heart. What the Latin translation of the life of Antony calls purity of heart. What Benedict calls the perfect love of God, which casts out fear.

[11:33]

Furthermore, if we want to be tricky, we could look at the next line of Benedict, where he says, all that he once performed with dread, he will now begin to observe without effort, as though naturally from habit. Now remember, in that chapter 14 of The Life of Antony, one of the descriptions of Antony when he had achieved this kind of transformation or integration, was that he conducted himself according to nature, katafusin. And I mention that as kind of a creational echo or a kind of a reminiscence of paradise, humanity being what humanity was intended to be. And Benedict says here, the works are performed naturally, as if from habit, katafusin, in a natural state, as we are meant to be. That may be a little bit much, but it seems to me you might make that connection.

[12:36]

I would also mention here the apothem attributed to Antony, which I read, I think it was that first conference, when Antony made the statement toward the end of his life, I no longer fear God, but love him. For love casts out fear. And that, of course, is Benedict's summit. the achievement one has after mounting all of the steps of humility." Now, that's maybe more a spiritual midrash than anything really based in the evidence, but I find that helpful. Let me say a couple of things as well about oratio, prayer, and, once again, the deus in agitorium, and then I'll turn it over to what you came up with. The two places that I think are of most interest to us in trying to get a hold of Benedict's understanding of this tradition of prayer that we've begun to discern and the things that we looked at are chapters 20 and 52.

[13:44]

So I'll skip the whole treatise on the office and go right to chapter 20, Reverence and It is in this chapter that I find some of my real problems with the translation we have before us in RB 1980, which I think does a good job of trying to write something contemporary, but misses a lot of the echoes of the language in the original. So this is one of those places where you really have to look at the Latin. And then you begin to see, aha, this reminds me of Cassian, or this reminds me of so-and-so, or so-and-so. Benedict sets up a kind of parallel between the way that we approach a powerful human being and the way that we approach God. He says if we ask a favor from a powerful man, we do it with humility and with reverence. Cum humilitate et reverentia.

[14:50]

This is chapter 20. He says when we pray to God, We also do it with humility, as we would to the powerful man. He strengthens it by saying, with all humility, omni humilitate. And then he says, and also with puritatis devotione, puritatis devotione, which R.B. 1980 translates as sincere devotion. If you look at the Latin, With devotion of purity, or with intention of purity, or with purpose of purity, you begin to think, passion, purity of heart, and all of those bells start to go off. And I don't think it's reading into the text to make that kind of connection. If you go on to verse three, R.B.

[15:53]

reads, you must know that God regards our purity of heart and tears of compunction not our many words. First of all, not many words, and we remember this desert tradition of short aspirations in prayer. It is not a wordy form of spirituality. Then this business of purity of heart, which we've traced from the Latin translation of the life of Antony into Cassian, where it becomes a predominant motif. And here we find it turning up in Benedict, precisely in the context of prayer, which is where we found it so richly developed in Conferences 9 and 10 of Cassian. Then when it talks about compunction of tears, that would send us back to Antony, where it talks about praying with tears, to Pacomius, where there are numerous mentions of that, but I think especially to the end of Cassian's Conference 9.

[16:55]

where there's a discussion of the prayer of tears and how that fits in to this kind of scheme of prayer that Cassian is developing. Verse 4, prayers should therefore be short and pure unless perhaps it is prolonged under the inspiration of divine grace. Now pretty clearly this to me is referring to an individual's prayer. brevis et pura oratio, pure, okay? Again, we make that connection with the preceding verse and also with the tradition. And less prolonged by grace. Now, if I were fanciful, I might see that as an allusion to this kind of prayer of fire that Cashin talks about, but I can't really safely do that. But I think if you read this again, with the background of that tradition, you realize there might be some echoes or hints here.

[17:59]

That's speculation. Then a note with verse 5. In community, however, prayer should always be brief. When the superior gives the signal, all should rise together. Now, DeVogt Way has led the way in having us see that verse as referring to the silent prayer between the Psalms, and in our case, after the reading, that we found in Pacomius as an essential aspect of the communal synaxis. So, that's really kind of a footnote. Briefly, chapter 52, the oratory of the monastery. I'm interested here in verse 4. If at other times someone chooses to pray privately, he may simply go in and pray, in the Latin that's really nice, intret et oret, just go at it.

[19:13]

not in a loud voice, but with tears and heartfelt devotion." Now here we are with another awful translation. With heartfelt devotion, in the English side, if you look at the Latin side, it is intentione cordis, with the intention of the heart, which sends us back to Cassian's Conference 1 on the goal and aim of the Conference 9, where he restates that with his discussion of prayer as part of the goal of the monk. And that whole sense of purity of heart as singleness of purpose or intention. So, again, the English side of the page would not help us to make that connection. But if you look at the Latin side, you realize, aha, that's got to be an echo of that tradition. as well as the tears. Now, should I go on and talk about the deus noeditorium, or would you like to stop for a minute and get your reactions on those two chapters?

[20:25]

referring to the new, the new man, the new nature in Christ, the new creation. Yes. We have discussed this here, we have read things. I think Brother James Yeah, and that's probably a good clarification. I guess what I would say to that is, certainly. But again, I think the Eastern perspective is to regard, to have a much closer link between the new creation in Christ and the original creation. Christ is certainly the fulfillment. Christ is certainly more perfect than Adam and Eve were. just returning to the original level, but they're very much linked.

[21:42]

And I think the Western perspective is to have much more break between the two. So I'd say it probably is an echo of original creation, but certainly gains all of its power from the fact that it's a new creation, which is certainly more exalted than the first. That's a good distinction. This kind of story is a bit dangerous, but I couldn't speculate without... I know some scripture people who have said that they thought that Paul, I guess especially Father Augustine, stopped. except when he was here. But anyway, the Gnostic heresy came in so close on early church scripture that they backed away from some of these ideas or the real radicalism, if you want, or so forth, that notion of creation.

[22:44]

And so you wonder, did some of the things like this temper the East in a way, because it does make a difference to us. I mean, it's true. It's the way you see the whole thing, not the way you see a part of it. But just to go back to the beginning, I mean, we have to do that in a way, because we have to go, we don't like the famous exoduses out of Egypt, but then out of Babylon, and so on and so forth. But anyway, you wonder if something like that has, and then still, you know, in our tradition, have kept something of that kind of fear of getting too speculative and too new and doing away with everything. The idea of the goodness of the original creation and not that Gnostic dualism of matter. So, you're going to be over-spiritualizing That's a good point.

[23:51]

The whole Philippians hymn, what people have done with Exodus on the Philippians hymn, has been kind of along those lines, some of the most recent stuff. I think what's interesting in that regard about this whole creational business is that precisely those Greek writers who were attacked for being Neoplatonic and intellectual and so on, like Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, are also the ones who have the strongest emphasis on this creational business. So I think they get maligned a bit. what some people regard as the intellectualist tradition of monasticism.

[24:54]

What an awful word, you know, as if that means it's not something that's rooted in real experience and creation. Anyway, should I go on to the deus natatorium and then we can try to pull it together after that? Now, we're very aware of how Benedict uses the deus noditorium in the rule. He places it at the beginning of the day hours of prayer, mentioning it for the little hours, and by extension, we understand it as an opening versicle for laws and for vespers. Now, I find this to be strikingly appropriate, and I've mentioned this a little bit in my thing in monastic studies. Certainly, Benedict would know the traditional use of this verse in Cassian's writings, because Cassian was extremely popular, and by the time Benedict comes along, Cassian's stuff has been around for quite a while. And this is something that we do not find in the Rule of the Master, nor do we find it in the Roman Office, at least the way I read it, until after the Rule of Benedict.

[26:06]

So we ask ourselves, why does this verse appear for the first time in the Rule of Benedict, and why does he place it as the opening verse of the Office, given its traditional use as a verse for the private meditatio of a monk? Now, just as a kind of a textual caution since this came up the other day, there is controversy about whether or not the references in the rule to the institutes and conferences are to be seen as referring to Cassian. It seems to me that it is perfectly safe to say that even if they are broader than simply referring to Cassian, they include Cassian. So I think anybody who says that Benedict does not know Cassian, I just don't understand that. It may be he refers to other texts as well, but I think certainly Cassian is known to Benedict. So that he and his monks would encounter this verse, God come to my assistance, Lord make haste to help me at the office, knowing full well the tradition of the verse in John Cassian.

[27:18]

Now what's the connection? I tried to make a point in Reading Conference 10 with you that Cassian is not derogating the canonical prayers, in other words, the psalmody and so on, associated with the regular obligation of a monk to pray at certain hours of the day. And that's something Anchorites did as well as Cenobites. And we have that business at the end of Conference 10 where Cassian says, you now return to the rest of Scripture and the psalmody and so on with this renewed understanding. Now maybe I'm attributing more to Benedict's creativity than I should. Maybe it was instinct, because formed in this tradition, his instincts I think could be trusted. I think it's striking to take that verse, considered as meditatio in Scripture privately, and to place it at the head of what is, at least in large part, a communal meditatio of the Scripture.

[28:23]

Now, I would make a liturgical theological point about that and say that what it is saying is that there is not, in fact, a radical distinction between private and communal prayer, although communal prayer has its distinctive dimension, as we found in Pacomius. It's ecclesial. Something happens when people pray together that doesn't happen when they pray separately. But Benedict is saying, I think, by using this verse, that God's Word is God's Word. God's Word encompasses the life of the monk, and it is there at the communal meditatio as it is at the individual meditatio. Now in saying that, I'm not trying to equate common prayer with private prayer and therefore take the de vogue wayline of the fact that the work of God is simply the support for the monk's unceasing prayer.

[29:36]

I think it's clear from the rule of Benedict that Benedict has very strong convictions about the distinctive quality of communal prayer and something that struck me today when I was reading this morning was that when he uses the phrase, prefer nothing to the work of God, which he inherits from a tradition of Western monastic rules. He doesn't come up with that himself. The only other places in the rule where that same formula of words is used, prefer nothing, is with reference to Christ or to the love of Christ. So I think that makes a rather significant statement about the office. Something that is of interest is that the only other place I know of where this verse, the deus in agitatorium, turns up in a monastic rule, not based on Benedict and not being used in the same way as in Benedict, is in the rule of Columban, who dies in 615, so we can date him a century later than Benedict.

[30:38]

In the rule of Columban, after every psalm of the office, all of the monks are to kneel and to say three times to themselves silently, God come to my assistance, Lord, make haste to help me. I think in that case, it is indisputable that it comes from Cassian because there is other evidence of Cassian's influence on Columban and a general affinity of the Irish monks for Egyptian practices, which would be mediated through the Latin of Cassian. And I think there, too, we find an interesting liturgical use, although much more in line with Cassian's tradition, of the deus in auditorium, which might for us only highlight all the more what Benedict does with it. Everyone says it together, and it is said at the head of the office. I can't prove that, but I haven't found anybody who

[31:42]

can come up with anything against it, and I've found no other explanation of how the deus inauditorium gets into the Benedictine office. And I've waded through all the de Vogue stuff, and it's just not there. So I'd stake something on this, I think. One other little footnote about something else that I was thinking about a few weeks ago and struck me, and I'll just pass it on in terms of kind of a spiritual thought more than anything else. It struck me while we were reading at table this book that you've just started at supper, Esther de Waal's book, which is just a wonderful little book, that I think one could interpret Benedict's horror of murmuring, especially when he talks about murmuring in the heart in chapter 5, as somehow, this is tenuous, related to some of what Cashin discusses with prayer of the heart Because in Cassiany, he has this image of the heart as the essence of the meditation.

[32:50]

That just struck me as kind of an interesting way of understanding why murmuring is such an awful thing. Not only because it's not charitable toward other people, but that could be one reason why Benedict feels it destroys the very soul of the monk. Maybe that's just speaking to me, but it really hit home. That's all I have to say about the rule, at least with regard to what we've done. I'd be interested in your reflections or what bells went off in your heads as you heard some of this stuff the past few days or looked over the rule in the light of it. This idea of the blurry distinction between what is private prayer and what is very interesting, saying that by putting the versicle in front of the offices, saying that this, in effect, constitutes forming an integral part of constant prayer.

[34:31]

This is tricky because the issue is one of perspective. I think it's very clear that Benedict following much of the ancient tradition does not draw a radical distinction between private and public prayer. However, I think he does attribute to liturgical prayer a distinctiveness which is much greater than that found in our previous authors. Pocomius perhaps accepted, although I think in Benedict it's even stronger than in Pocomius. I'm trying to figure out how I can say this carefully without making it sound like de Vaugue's thesis, which I disagree with. I think what Benedict is trying to do is to show a common ground between the prayer of an anchorite and a cenobite, a common ground between the communal prayer of the work of God and the private prayer that the monk would make in the oratory between the hours of prayer or at his work.

[35:44]

And I think he's making a point about the role of Scripture and the role of the Word, because it seems to me that's the essence of the deus in agitorium in Cassian's conference. So, if I say any more than that, I'll get into trouble, so maybe you should ask, you know, your specific question, so I don't spin that off and get you confused. Maybe the easiest thing for me to do would be to read my paragraph from my article on monastic studies, because there I was really careful about what I said, and I can't duplicate that off the top of my head. I tried to make the point there. Thank you. The book just opens to it, I'm very impressed.

[36:47]

You're checking me out before I came. All right. Okay. All right, where is it? Okay. St. Benedict's placement of this verse at the beginning of the day hours of prayer is strikingly appropriate. His monks, familiar with Cassian's writings, would mark the joining of the meditatio of solitary prayer to the psalmody of the office, which is the meditatio of communal prayer. Benedict takes Cassian one step further, refusing any absolute dichotomy between personal and corporate prayer or between the prayer suitable to anchorite and that proper to cinnabite?" And then I make the point about Cassian.

[37:50]

Far from excluding the other practices of the spiritual discipline, then, the deus in agitorium sustains them and is sustained by them. Vigils, meditation, psalmody. That's what I'm trying to say, I guess. Clear as mud. Striping a Columban put it at the end, and St. Benedict put it at the end. I was just thinking, you always remember the beginning or the end of things. Well, Columban is after every psalm, so it would be in the intervals, after each one, which is much more, you know, kind of Cassian's thing. And in Columban's rule, it is prayed silently by the monks, so it's a much more private thing. And Benedict, it's said by all. Or, you know, it's replied, it's responsorial. And at the head of the office, which is an interesting difference.

[38:53]

I was thinking about the same thing, you know, a lot. And where the directory speaks about what a lot of liturgical texts have of, you know, way back in the Bible, Acts 12. Orbit anyway and rhetoric speaks about the strong. This is gathering. I like the other gathering and so forth. And at least at the moment, it seems to me that that's. That's not saying that. Well, what it is saying is that God is more present when we're all together. I think it's saying that the sign of God's presence or the sign of God's love or the sign of God is more palpable and stronger. It's the phrase we have out of the Psalms, which is a Hebrew thing. I have not hidden the justice in my heart, but made it known to the whole assembly.

[39:57]

So I think it's wrong to think of them in terms of, say, better and worse and so on and so forth. It's no different. But the sign value, both for ourselves and for others, is stronger. Now, we can all ignore signs at work, so it's not, you know, inevitably effective or anything else. But the sign of God's justice and presence, love, uniting us all together in self and fullness, is more visible when we're all praying together than it is when we're separated or dealing with the sick or so on and so forth. But other aspects of God's love and presence are visible when we're dealing with the sick So it's not a question of better or worse, it's a question of a more visible or stronger sign of that. Anyway, that's where I came in. I think it's interesting to compare Benedict's treatise on the office to that in the Master. Because in Benedict, you know, everything is quite positive about the office.

[41:01]

It's the work of God, nothing is preferred, all of that stuff. And the Master has those things too, because Benedict works with the Master. But the Master is full of all kinds of little negative comments about what you shouldn't do during office. He talks about blowing your nose and all this kind of stuff. And it really makes it sound like an ordeal. you know, as much as anything else, because you've got all these cranky people to deal with. And Benedict, that just drops out. So there's, again, a matter of tone in Benedict that is unmistakable. Just unmistakable. Doesn't it say something about that? Doesn't it say something about that? Only when we come together, we can have this Christ presence or something.

[42:05]

I mean, I might be wrong, but... Yeah, that's pretty interesting. what he says, although the only part is on ritual, the other only, I'd have to get the article, the other onlys are that there's only one resurrection, one, let's see, but I would say The sign of that is more obvious when we're together. It's not, because in a sense, the resurrection is going on. It's a cosmic reality. It doesn't happen just because we come together. But in a way, we offer our humanity the same everyday as Mary and Joseph, for that to take place within a different context. And you'd have to get Patrick Reagan to describe his own. But he was the only, with regard to ritual, which means to come into contact with that.

[43:13]

This can only happen, come into contact with that reality of Christ, that can only happen through ritual. I have a question. In your opinion, when we said that The lessons should be prepared to the work of God. If you refer to the divine office, or to private prayer, or to thoughts. Well, I think it's pretty clearly to the divine office. That's the tradition he's in, because that phrase turns up first in that series of Gallic monastic rules. The rule of the forefathers, is that where it's first, or second rule of the fathers? It's one of those two. is where it turns up first, and it's very clearly there referring to the divine office, and I think Benedict too. But I was real struck by that parallel with prefer nothing whatever to the love of Christ or to Christ, and the only other mention of that phrase is prefer nothing to the work of God.

[44:18]

It's really striking, and maybe makes that connection that Father Martin's trying to make about Christ being realized in the work of God. you know, effectively, in the communal prayer. Conversely, one could then also say that the private prayer of the monk receives ecclesial dimension. It is not just private prayer. I think I read that thing the other day from that French book that I've been reading that says that when one reads the scriptures, one never reads them alone. It is necessarily ecclesial. your immediate community as a society.

[45:29]

When you do things, the more you've got other people with you, the more you turn on each other. I got that from Patrick. The more you're in with your community, doing something together, the more Christ is in your midst. It doesn't mean he's only in your midst. It's like Viljo says in his big book on the Pekomian liturgy, I think I mentioned this the other day, The mystery of the church is primordially communal. I mean, at heart, it's communal. And I tell my freshman theology students that you cannot be a Christian if you don't go to church, or if you're not part of some sort of Christian community. You can't be a Christian on your own. It's by definition impossible. And that just freaks them out. But I think that there's a lot to that, whatever it means. And I don't know what that really means, ultimately. But I think that comes through in some of this stuff as well.

[46:33]

Well, I think it means having some contact with others, with the body of Christ. And I wouldn't be so rigid as to say, you know, Sunday Mass every Sunday. I mean, that's a little legalistic, I think, but I think some contact with the body of Christ, and even in an explicit way. So a solitary can be a Christian? No, a solitary is very much in contact with the body of Christ. Very much. That's the paradox of the solitary life. A solitary is in a community and goes apart from a community and remains in some relationship to a community. But still, a recluse is defined in relationship to a community.

[47:34]

In other words, a recluse is a recluse from people, comes from a Christian community, and is seen in relation to the Christian community, even if there's no contact. That's very different from someone who says, well, I like this stuff, I'll be a Christian, and has never had that kind of contact or relationship with the community. I guess my gripe, the reason I said that harsh statement to my students was that, you know, it's TV evangelism, it's individualism, and I think that is utterly antithetical to Christianity. So maybe I overstated it, because of that. The intention of the religious system is to be united with all people, which is not an excuse. The intention is not to cut himself off from all people. But that's a step. I mean that if you are going in that process of being purified, you've reached a point that you are with the Church.

[48:41]

There's never been a ritualist yet that wasn't dependent on the Buddha. Depending on people doesn't mean that you are in communion with your partner. It means you are relating, you are relating to, you are connected to. It's a big difference, you know, being, you know, because we might be here together, here together, but we might not be related. We might not meet in communion, but physically we might be together, but we might be miles away from one another. So that's the fact that they need somebody to provide for the material needs, that doesn't mean that they have to be for that. but in communion with us people.

[49:43]

And by definition, they would not be Christian. They would not be Christians. But I would like you to comment on this. It's a problem of time. What is there so much fear about the position of the public and the other one, about the office and the private player? The goal is seen. Well, just for the Columbia, at the beginning, it had to go to the state because it was afraid to do something, to put it in the same position of the public. I think the I mean, in a sense, you've touched on the question when you talk about communion. Because I think some people, when they read some commentators, de Vauquay would be one of them, all of the primary one.

[50:50]

And he's especially, I think, to be reckoned with since he is the commentator on the rule of Benedict. Nobody has done a tenth of the stuff that he's done. And I think some people are afraid that his interpretation of the rule of Benedict, viewing it in a more exclusively vertical abbot-disciple relationship and emphasizing the obligation of each individual to pray unceasingly, rather than the horizontal relationship between the brothers and the distinctive value of communal prayer, is dangerous. because it might make us tend to think of a highly individualistic approach to Benedictine monastic life, and also is kind of threatening to a lot of emphasis that people have recovered in the past 20 years on relationships between people in monastic community and the importance of a horizontal dimension to liturgical

[51:52]

prayer as well. Now, that's not to say that he is really doing that, because, I mean, he's not a bad person. But I think that it could be said that he tends to emphasize one view over another, and other people try to balance it. He doesn't try to make it exclusively legal. He says, very specifically, you're not there in any common opinion at all. You're simply there to follow a prescription, to pray all this. to help you fulfill your obligation. Those of us who object to that as against Benedict, it really hits at the heart of the Benedictine life. It's destructive. I mean, if you want to follow the vote, that's one thing, but it's destructive to the Benedictine notion of what life in Christ is. But what I see possibly in that approach about the coming of Christ from the point of view of him is that You made that an obligation, like a sorrow that you have to give.

[52:58]

He called you in prayer. And it is an obligation that I feel I have to give, and that gives me, or that makes me, acquire this supreme, to the true benefit, which is nothing should be preferred to the oneself. But I guess I would interpret that too, that not only do I have an obligation to God to pray unceasingly, but I have an obligation to you people, you know, to turn up in that church at certain hours. And I think that is extremely important. But I don't go there, I mean I don't go there only because I'm afraid that your private prayer depends on it. I mean I go there because something happens which eludes us in its mystery. And I would be real hesitant to you know, to try to sacrifice that. Otherwise we could go into church and have, you know, little confessional boxes as our choir stalls and we could all go in there at the same time and read our office privately.

[54:05]

But we don't do that. the divine reality being expressed, you think it's more than just obedience to a precept. All of God being man invested by drawing us together. And to deny that or not let that happen, to do it simply on obedience is to be a slave, it's to keep your God on a survival level and never get to a feeding of our real love of God. That's the thing that it did that to me. That's why I'm here. Prevention from allowing God to love you, but you loving God without keeping a rule. If I am obedient to God, even for just human beings, even if I'm obedient without any sin, I believe that if I go to the office, just as a matter of giving,

[55:08]

The power of God, Jesus, will be with that thing that will make it go to the office, no other will give it. But I was looking for something that I know I will get there. It will be any beauty anymore. I will do it out of beauty. But I have to start by obedience, by obeying first. I can't do it. I can't do it. I'm not going to do it. But the whole grace thing will not let you get beyond the obedience that's the problem. It is only in response to a precept. It's that only that destroys the whole thing. It's very, very little that turns the whole thing off. There's too many limitations that we get. The burglary is the exact opposite. The burglary is obliging me, pulling me close to the office.

[56:10]

It's a duty. But he will say, that the only thing God will take away from man, be what he is, no putting him in the position of God. If you don't find truth, God will take it away from you. But the old way of saying, the only reason you're there is for a reason. And that is not the only reason, it's one of the reasons. And once I fulfill the precept, I'm finished. I fall short of the love of God, but it gets me because I will not be united with all of them. I'm simply there, following one precept of Christ, not the whole, maybe just one. It's practical. Divine was a fetish in some sense of what it is. It's an oversimplification, a reductionist little thing, and it winds up with a human precept. Just as Christ said, you're following the precepts of man, and replacing the precepts of God, which is the law of man.

[57:19]

And to be one with God. It's exactly that thing out of Matthew where it shows that the Your skill was, if you tell the tribes, your skill at putting up precepts in men, following them in such a way that you destroy the precepts of God. Is the world what we are? And then we don't agree with it? No. We're not just men. We have the Spirit of God, we have the Spirit of Christ. And we are the humanity, we reunite with the humanity of Christ. We understand that, but as St. John says, we know what we are, but we don't know what we're going to be yet. It's fantastic. But we're God's children, born directly of God, not even of our parents, but born directly of God. That's who we are. And as he said to John, as Christ told John and James, you don't know what kind of a creature you are, but it's all fired up. That's the problem. We don't know what we are. We know we're myth.

[58:21]

That's the thing that DeWolfe way, gets at him. You've simply got a human tradition that you follow. And it gets you to the depths of hell, if I will. Those things that seem light at the end, that eventually lead to the depths of hell. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't want to be the advocate of DeWolfe, but he wrote so many books, you know, that maybe in one he emphasized that overboard. It seems that there's also other things that he mentioned. This thing is so dangerous. He is such an authority. He is such an authority. There's no question about it. And really I almost give my right arm to know what he knows and to be able to, you know, have the heritage he has, to put perfection on the whole. I think it's fantastic. And I'm in the greatest admiration for all that. But this is wrong. And I think you have to say it.

[59:25]

Yeah, I think on the other side. We thought of William James, who was absolutely a God-figure quite before. He said, this, the Master, is Ramon. And one thing he was talking about. And I'd say, what's the wrong way? And all these other things, terrific, but in this, he is Ramon. In the same way as God said about David, or Moses, or anybody else in the past, we can take all he said, but in this, he is Ramon. That's the only wrong way. He will say in his commentaries, yes, there's a communal dimension, but at heart, at base, the important thing is fulfilling the precept. And so it becomes a question of essential points, and there, it's problematic. Because I would argue that at base, there's a mystery, and it's a mystery of communion. as much as it is a mystery of an individual encountering God in prayer. I know you mentioned it very directly once, which was in Gethsemane in that lecture, for even a monastic life is obedient.

[60:34]

But at the same time you can say that obedience also has a community dimension, because we have a schedule, it's for the sake of of the whole group also. That's what I say, because I could eat when I want, if I want, what I want. But we have three meals a day normally and the schedule has certain hours for most people. And there's something good for the individual so that I'm not you know, in the cooler night and day. And that other people, you know, will know that there's something left in the cooler because, you know, they have to prepare the feed. That's why it's, you know, I find it a bit unfortunate that it turned into a preliminary to me. Yeah, you're right. It is unfortunate that it has to be that. And it also has to be said, in fairness to Ogui, that a lot of people get mad about him and don't really read it.

[61:45]

That so often happens in this kind of thing. But I think what it highlights for us is a central problem in Cenobitic monasticism, and one that I really wrestle with, and that is, there is inevitably a kind of tension, hopefully creative, between the individual and the community. We had a homily one day at Mass in my monastery, and the celebrant stood up, and the basis of his homily was, when we go to God, we ultimately go to God alone. And that sparked such a fuss, because my first reaction was entirely negative. You know, that's not true. We're a church. We're communal. But then, you know, I try to sort out the arguments, and I realize that, you know, you could easily argue both perspectives. When we go to God, we go together. We cannot go alone. Or, when we go to God, we do go alone. And it becomes very, very hard to sort it out. And I guess the problem when you hit someone like DeVogtwe, whose writing is so clear, and he's so strong in what he feels, is you think he's opting for one or the other.

[62:57]

And I'm here trying to juggle both. And I don't know any other way to do it. Which is, it's frustrating. I do really feel like St. Paul is a Judaizer, because there's something in him that's got to get up to your back legs. And it's this notion that takes away the mystery, and the action of God, and the body of Christ, and gives the Spirit to all of that. And puts it off in some people. In this one area, disaster, the rest of it, I think it's terrific, enormously good. And I'm even happy for him clarifying the problem for me. Because we have a double dimension, as people, we're unique, and we're relational. And unless both of those are activated, something's being left out. And it's difficult. And that's it. It cannot be done logically. Because we're both man. And you can't split it.

[63:59]

If you split us off into unique elements, that's not what we are. If you make us a drunk collectivity, that's not what we are. But I think it's important to realize what we are. The best we can do or want to do is say we're both unique and relational. And both of those elements have to be part of the Christian history. And without that, let's say with either one, you're going to kill what there is in your computer logic, but in the typical configuration. So I think on that one thing, I think it's a yes. And like ordinary contentious and so on and so forth. But that one really, it's just so clear that that's where it's, you know, Where does this all appear? I haven't read the page. I read 32 of it.

[65:01]

The spiritual and doctrinal commentary that came out just last year. Yeah, the English came out. Because, I mean, even to use, you know, to have a precept, say, of unseeking prayer, you know, then to deny, you know, the witness dimension, or let's say, the congruent dimension, would be a contradiction in terms, I think. I mean, it depends how he defines what does he mean by prayer, you know, whereas what is it he's really prescribing seems to mean. And, of course, he gets that from the scriptures, you know. So, if it's really going to be prayer, it's going to have to be all these other things. I just wonder what context he was writing in, or what else he has to say all around that statement. You see, this is what I don't know, because I haven't read it. Part of the problem, I think, is that he leans very heavily on monastic tradition, and is loathe to say that something new is developed in Benedict.

[66:10]

And I would say that that communal thing is not new.

[66:13]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v004
@Score_JJ