Scheib A

EXPLANATION OF THE RB AS A SIGN OFTHE TIMFS: RULE COMMFNTARIFS OF THFTWFNTIFTH CFNTURY

Manuela Scheiba, O.S.B.

The nineteenth century brought large-scale change for Benedictinemonasticism. Enlightenment, secularization, liberalism and anti-clericalism had undermined the Benedictine life and destroyedmany communities. Then there arose restored or new monasteries inEurope. Efforts in the spirit of restoration (e.g., in Bavaria, Austriaand Switzerland) sought to regain the situation that existed before thecollapse; efforts in the romantic spirit (e.g., Solesmes and Beuron)wished to return to the spirit of Benedict in its original simplicity andto realize a medieval lifestyle.

New foci of interest arose continually both inside and outsideof Europe, and these had their own accents: liturgy, asceticism,mission, education and the care of souls, scholarship and culture. Inthese simultaneous developments lay the roots for the simultaneousexplosion of development in the twentieth century, which acceleratedthe interpretation of the Rule of Benedict, Not without reason was thetwentieth century called the "century of Rule commentaries,"

RESTORATION, CONSOLIDATION AND SELF-ASSURANCE(P Delatte)

The commentary that Paul Delatte (1848-1937)' wrote in exile inEngland (1913) forms both the highpoint and conclusion of the epochof regenerated Benedictine monasticism. During the reign of the secondsuccessor of Abbot Prosper Gueranger, the founder of Solesmes, theBenedictines were again oppressed by the government and severaltimes driven out of France, In the new situation, Delatte fought forthe reinstatement of regular observance and community life, since thecommunity still lived dispersed in houses of the neighboring villages.

Sr. Manuela Scheiba, O.S.B., is a professor in the Monastic Institute of Sant' Anselmo inRome. This article appeared in Erhe und Auftrag 2007:1, pp. 42-54 and this translation was firstprinted in Tjurunga 72 (2007) 75-86. It is based on her doctoral dissertation, entitled Gehorsamgegenüber dem Abt (Obedience to the Abbot) (EOS Verlag, St. Ottilien, Ger. 2009). The translatorof this article is Terrence Kardong with assistance from Hugh Feiss.

' Paul Delatte, Commentaire sur la Règle de Saint Benoit (Paris 1913; ET Justin McCann(Latrobe, PA, 1950).

138 ABR 6 1 : 2 - J U N E 2010

This brought him opposition in his own ranks—on the basis of ananonymous denunciation in Rome he had to spend a period of his reignsuspended from office! For some people, Delatte had the reputation ofan autocrat, the "commander with his barracks on the River Sarthe,"While in English exile, he resigned because of new opposition, butwas soon reelected.

The hermeneutical key to his Rule commentary must beunderstood against the background of the contemporary patriarchalsystem in society: He emphasizes the authority of the abbot and treatsthe monastic community as a family. Following Gueranger, he seesthe monastic life as a contemplative and liturgical life. Everywherein this commentary we can detect the psychological and pedagogicaltraces of the experienced spiritual director that Delatte was. Havinggrown up without a father, he became a priest because he wished to bea spiritual father to others.

His time as a university professor (before entry into Solesmes)explains why he uses the style of neoscholastic theology in presentinghis commentary, Delatte dispenses with a scholarly apparatus in thestrict sense; yet he does bring in the historical sources of Benedictinemonasticism and so places his commentary on solid ground. In the textof the Rule, he gives little attention to Benedict's use of the biblicalcitations and other citations. But his free biblical associations are stilla product of his own intensive life with the Bible,

SUMMONS TO THE TIME (Ildefons Schuster)

Ildefons Schuster (1880-1954), a monk, and from 1918 the Abbotof the Benedictine Abbey of St, Paul outside the Walls in Rome,wrote his commentary on the Rule^ in 1942 as the Cardinal of Milan,It is done in a very personal style, with anecdotes from his yearsin the monastery, citations from Dante, but also literary, historical,archeological reminiscences, the fruit of his earlier scholarly studiesand his experience as abbot.

In his manner of commenting on the Rule, he reveals the kindof monastic education he had. The spiritual orientation of St, Paul'swas scarcely distinguishable from the general Italian piety of thenineteenth century: it contains Ignatian spirituality and the moralityof St, Alphonsus Ligouri; and the influence of the Devotio Moderna

'UdefonsoSchuster,San Benedetto Abate, La " Regula Monasteriorum" Testo, introduzione,commento e note {Turin 1942).

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O.S.B, 139

remains palpable. Its ascesis was directed to the following of Christand its mysticism had wandered far from its theological foundations.

Cardinal Schuster wished to make the Regula Benedicti availableas a "spiritual handbook" for the clergy of his diocese, as well as forall the faithful. This Rule had once brought forth "giants of holiness"in European society. He programmatically places a classic ofmedieval spirituality, the Following of Christ, at the head of his Rulecommentary. He considers this book, with its individualistic piety ofimperatives and deeds, as a complementary work and as "the mostbeautiful spiritual commentary" on the Rule.

In addition, Schuster adds passages from the works of the greatFathers and theologians; he highlights moralistic passages. He makeshis reflections follow the chapters of the Rule, but they serve him mainlyas jumping off places for his own thoughts. He refers surprisingly littleto Scripture and the Fathers in his commentary. This is a characteristicthat he shares with the spirituality of the nineteenth century. He doesnot even refer to the Bible or the Fathers when Benedict structureshis Rule text with biblical citations or draws on the patristic-monasticexegetical tradition.

Schuster's service as a bishop fell in the time when Fascism wasgrowing strong in Italy. As such it sought to curtail the educationaland moral influence of the Catholic Church on the people. Thecommentary of the Cardinal of Milan is a reactive document: heopposes the civilizing power of the Rule of Benedict to the generaldestructive power of violence; he contrasts the return to God with theblind errors of the cult of personality (Mussolini); he sets spiritualpaternity against tyranny; holiness against unholiness; the saintsagainst the Duce\ the sacrifice of self-will to the senseless sacrificeof the battlefield. Schuster's commentary received a second editionin 1945, but it is still little known outside Italy. Schuster himself wasbeatified in 1996.

THE CHARISMATIC AND ECCLESIASTICAL CHARACTER OFBENEDICTINE MONASTICISM (Ildefons Herwegen)

In 1944 there appeared the Rule commentary of Ildefons Herwegen(1884-1946).^

The author belonged to the group that paved the way for liturgicalrenewal and he was generally regarded as an authority in the areaof history and liturgical scholarship. The commentary is a "spiritual

' Ildefons Herwegen. Sinn und Geist der Benediktinerregel (Einsiedeln-Köln 1944).

T4Ö ABR 6 1 : 2 - J U N E 2010

testament" of the Abbot of Laach and the summary of his ten-yearleadership of the Benedictine Academy, which he founded in 1931.

The very title "Meaning and Spirit of the Benedictine Rule"is programmatic: Herwegen wants to emphasize the inherent, theexpress intention of Benedict, and not just share his own thoughts. Heis thus oriented to the scholarly and the interdisciplinary method. As isclear from the bibliography, he works into his commentary the resultsof research from theology and philosophy; profane, ecclesiasticaland canonical history; patrology as well as pedagogical and socialhistory.

Herwegen himself went through an inner development. Hisintellectual path led him from an earlier philological and canonicalapproach to a vision of the Rule in its connection to Holy Scriptureand ancient monasticism. Thus he sought to show the "spirit" of theRule alongside its "meaning." Eor him, Benedict is permeated with theHoly Spirit and the "charismatic essence" of monasticism. Herwegenpresents the role of the abbot as one of a charismatic personality andhe especially stresses abbatial authority.

This theory lies at the root of Herwegen's monarchic and anti-democratic thinking.

The community has absolute priority in RB. The monastery is acommunity of saints and liturgy, to which the Spirit witnesses andwhich the Spirit unites. This community is to live intensively the lifeof the Church. Herwegen began in this hermeneutical direction withhis address of 1936 entitled Väterspruch und Mönchsregel.

Due to its sharp tone, Herwegen's commentary met with criticism.He was not permitted to publish an unrevised second edition. Indeed, itwas advised that the book be removed from libraries to which noviceswould have access. After a Portuguese edition appeared in 1953, therewere rumors that Rome would ban the commentary altogether.

Nevertheless, Herwegen's doctrine of the pneumatic characterof the monastery, and its role as an integral element of the churchitself, has played an important theological part in the life of theChurch. Theology after Vatican Council II has newly discovered thecharismatic element in the general life of the Church, its structures, itsoffices and its communal aspects.

TEXT AND CONTEXT OE THE RULE (Anselmo Lentini)

The philologist Anselmo Lentini (1901-89) of the Abbey ofMontecassino published a commentary on the Rule in 1947 in

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O.S.B. MT

connection with the 1400* anniversary of the death of St. Benedict." Itconsists mainly of notes on the words of the Latin text. He makes useof the classical philological RB commentary of Benno Linderbauer(1922), which he corrects and enlarges. On this foundation Lentinibases his own translation, which already presents a first interpretation.Beyond that he wishes to present to a broad audience a simple aidfor reading RB. He does not comment further on the text of RB, butfunctions as its advocate.

Lentini is the first one to provide a competent numbering of theverses of the RB text. Latin and vernacular editions of RB immediatelyadopted his numbering. In this way it becomes easy to find passages ofthe Rule, to cite them precisely and to compare them. Lentini combinesthe detailed analysis of words with overarching explanation of apassage or a chapter. Thus the meaning and the flow of the argumentof the text are presented to the reader, and she can authentically enterinto the thought of Benedict.

In addition this commentary refers to customs, laws and institutionsfrom the time of the Rule, to Fathers and legislators of monasticismas well as church authors that Benedict probably utilized. Further, thiscommentator mentions both old and new commentators on the Rule.His point of view and his interests look mainly toward the past. Forthat reason, there is a certain tendency here toward idealism that isremoved from lived reality.

The work arose in the time of the evacuation of the monasteryof Montecassino, which fell victim to the Anglo-American bombingof 1944. It witnesses to Lentini's love for Benedict, his Rule and forMontecassino. In his second edition for the Jubilee Year 1980, Lentinichanged his commentary only slightly. He inserted passages thattake up aspects of Vatican Council II, but these new thoughts are notbrought into any organic connection with the commentary. Fifty yearsafter the destruction of Montecassino (1994) and fifty years after thefirst edition (1997), two more posthumous editions have appeared.

FACTS RATHER THAN IDEOLOGY (Basilius Steidle)

In 1952 the Beuronese patrologist Basilius Steidle (1903-82)^published a commentary with the programmatic subtitle "The Rule

•* Anselmo Lentini, S. Benedetto. La Regola. Testo, versione e commento (Montecassino1947).

' Basilius Steidle, Die Regel St. Benedikts. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und aus dem altenMönchtum erklärt (Beuron 1952); ET Urban Schnitzhofer (Canon City, CO: Holy Cross Abbey1967).

142 ABR 61:2-JUNE 2010

explained through ancient monasticism," It was an answer to thedemand of the hour: "facts," The Latinist Lentini had already met thisdemand from the philological side, Steidle in his Rule commentarywishes to free the text from hundreds of years of overlay so as tounderstand it in its "native soil," that is. Holy Scripture and thepatristic-monastic literature, and the tradition of the Early Church andmonasticism,

Benedict should no longer be celebrated as an "innovator"(vs, Cuthbert Butler) nor as a "Roman" who is to be understood asinspired by profane models (vs, Ildefons Herwegen), Steidle seeks a"redimensioning" of the RB and offers a popular commentary basedon scholarly foundations. He has in mind a broad audience that isinterested in the monastic ideal.

Even in the form of his explication of the Rule—occasional notesas well as excurses on individual chapters or groups of chapters—this commentator stays in the background of his commentary. He letsBenedict himself speak, not wishing to pluck his words to pieces or burythem beneath systematic theological discussions. The commentatorgives no quick answers, but limits himself to observations, shortremarks and helpful analysis of concepts. He comments by offeringclear biblical citations, monastic texts and anecdotes. The readerherself must bring this illustrative textual material into connectionwith the text of the Rule,

Despite this reticence, Steidle's excurses and hermeneutieal notesshow the central place of Christ in the Rule, Moreover, the monasticcommunity is the "realization of the ideal church," At that time, thescholarly discussion over the connection between the Rule of theMaster and the Rule of Benedict was beginning to get acrimonious;but Steidle declined to take a clear position on it. His reluctance toenter into ideological polemic reflected his personal makeup.

An English translation of his commentary appeared in the UnitedStates in 1967, However, his commentary faded fairly quickly fromdiscussion. Even though Steidle may have decided not to revise hiswork nor to adapt to different scholarly positions, he deserves creditfor having explicated the Rule through the biblical-monastic traditionfor the first time.

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O,S,B, 143

AN OFFER OF CHRISTIAN ORIENTATION ON THE BASIS OFWELL-FOUNDED INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE (Garcia M,Colombás)

In the year 1954 there appeared a commentary on the Rule by GarciaM, Colombás (born 1920), a monk of the Abbey of Montserrat and hiscollaborators,'' It was published in the difficult time of rebuilding afterthe chaos of the Spanish Civil War, Fascism and the Second World War,The celebration of the fourteen-hundredth anniversary of the death ofBenedict two years after the end of the war (1947) was the occasionto recall the role of the monastic Patriarch in promoting Christianity,culture and peace in his own time and also for the present. Pope PiusXII had named him the "Father of Europe,"

Colombás and his collaborators aimed their work beyond themonastic circle to educated Spaniards and those in the Spanish-speakingworld. In a time which sought lasting, reliable, Christian values, thebook was conceived as a sort of summa benedictina, a "handbook" ofa Benedictine spirituality. In addition to the Second Book of Dialoguesof Gregory the Great and the Rule of Benedict, it includes informationon the history and spirituality of early monasticism. It treats of theliturgical cult and iconographie representations of Benedict, and itinquires into the whereabouts of his relics as well as the significanceof the "Benedictine medal,"

The Rule is explained in the context of its sources, the Bible and themonastic tradition. The Rule means to lead us on the way of grace andcontemplation. Its forerunners and models in this matter are Origen,Evagrius and John Cassian, This thinking provides the commentarywith its hermeneutical direction, Colombás and his associates in theirRule commentary take into account the current state of research andthey include the important findings in their work, which was reprintedin 1968,

As to the thesis that the Benedictine Rule is dependent on theRegula Magistri, which was very controversial at that time, theseauthors withhold their assent. Even in the thoroughly reworked versionof this Rule commentary that was published in 1979,̂ Colombás—incontradiction to most Rule scholars at that time—refused to accept thepriority of the Rule of the Master in relation to the Rule of Benedict,

' Garcia M. Colombás, Leon M. Sansegundo, Odilon M. Cunill, San Benito. Su vida y suregla {Madrid 1954).

' García M. Colombás, Iñaki Aranguren, La Regla de San Benito. Introducción y comentario(Madrid 1979).

144 ABR 6 1 : 2 - J U N E 2010

His work is the best historical/critical commentary in the Spanishlanguage. It presents the findings of monastic research in a mostbalanced fashion and, by hewing to a prudent course between scholarlyand spiritual exegesis, it addresses a broad readership. After thehermeneutic of the first two editions, which emphasized the theologyof grace and contemplation, the third edition of the commentary putsmore stress on the biblical and Christocentric element. It takes intoconsideration the whole breadth of the monastic tradition in whichBenedict stands.

"DEMYTHOLOGIZING" BENEDICT AND HIS RULE IN THECONTEXT OF A MÓNACHATUS QUAERENS (Adalbert de Vogué)

In the last four decades of the twentieth century, the exegesis andhermeneutic of the RB has been marked by the voluminous work of themonk, philologist and historian Adalbert de Vogué, who today lives asa hermit in his monastery of La Pierre-qui-Vire. His extensive, minutestudies of the RB and of early monasticism are fundamental sources forresearch on the Rule. Moreover this thinker has distinguished himselfin a period of revolution. In contrast to the period of self-consciouspax benedictina, in which Benedictine monasticism praised withoutquestion the ideals inherited from the nineteenth century, the secondhalf of the twentieth century saw the monks engaged in a new identityquest, a monachatus quaerens. This new sensibility was sharpenedstill further in the Second Vatican Council.

In his Rule commentary. Vogué immediately joins thehermeneutical program of his teacher, Basilius Steidle, whichexplicates the RB against the historical and spiritual background ofancient monasticism. His work is consciously a reaction or answerto the previous Rule interpretation of the twentieth century. In hisdissertation La Communauté et l'Abbé dans la Régie de saint Benoîtof 1961, Vogué comments on eighteen chapters of RB that deal withthe abbot and his position vis-à-vis the monks and the community.*

In explaining the RB, he is the first commentator to take fully intoaccount the Regula Magistri, which he considers the "main source" ofthe RB. He opposes an unhistorical treatment of the Rule, and a falseidealization and pious overvaluation of Benedict. He also opposesthose who like to exalt Benedict's originality. Vogue's "iconoclasm"

* Adalbert de Vogué, La Communauté et L'Abbé dans la Règle de saint Benoît (Paris-Brussels 1961); ET Charles Philippi (Kalamazoo. MI: Cistercian 1979 and 1988).

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O.S.B. 145

goes so far that he no longer speaks of Benedict, but only of the"redactor of the RB."

In this way. Vogué consciously takes a position against the ideas ofButler, Herwegen and Steidle, whom he considers "collectivistic" [toocommunity-minded: translator]. For his part, he understands the Ruleof Benedict through the first chapters (RB Prol to RB 7). These turnVogue's interpretation of the RB in the general direction of putting astrong accent on individual ascesis, humility, obedience, silence andspiritual direction.

Ten years later. Vogué produced a "historical-critical" commentarydealing with the chapters not discussed in La Communauté et l'Abbé!^In it, he studies the text of the Rule with methods and emphases thathave long been employed in biblical exegesis (literary analysis, sourcestudies, redaction history, history of observances and institutions,etc.).

In the "theological-spiritual" commentary he published in 1977,'°he presents his hermeneutical reflections. Here Vogué only presentsthe connections of the RB with Holy Scripture and the early patristic-monastic sources, with a glance at the spiritual development of monks.The most important reference for him is the double program of theconciliar decree Perfectae Caritatis of 1965: return to the sources andcontemporary renewal of religious life.

Vogué pleads for an "intelligent literalness" in exegesis of the Rule,for fidelity to the tradition along with aggiornamento. The observancesof which the Rule speaks he sees as a "vehicle" in which the Spiritof God expresses itself. La Communauté et l'Abbé (1979-88) wastranslated into English and the "theological-spiritual" commentary,which is of wide interest, has been translated into many languages.

No other modern commentary approaches that of Vogué inthe fullness of its scholarly findings. The renowned historian JeanLeclercq, O.S.B., was not afraid to call the twentieth century an aetasAdalbertiana (Age of Adalbert) in regard to research on the HolyRule.

PASTORAL ORIENTATION (Georg Holzherr)

In the period just before and around the commemoration of thefifteen-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Benedict (1980), there

' A. de Vogué, ¡M Règle de saint Benoît, vols. IV-VI, Commentaire historique et critique,se 184-86 (Paris 1972).

'° A. de Vogué, LM Règle de saint Benoît (Vol. Vil), Commentaire doctrinal et spiritual(Paris 1977).

146 ABR 6 1 : 2 - J U N E 2010

was growing interest in the Regula Benedicti, rereading it and inresearch into our own monastic tradition. The Rule commentary ofGeorg Holzherr (1927-)" appeared at this time. It is based on chaptertalks by the Abbot of Einsiedeln, and he states his pastoral point ofview programmatically in the subtitle: "Introduction to the ChristianLife."

In response to a search by many contemporaries for meditativeexperience and spiritual depth, Holzherr wrote his commentary fora wide readership that he invites to drink from the spring (ratherthan from wandering rivulets). The commentator is driven by thehermeneutical conviction that the RB forms a kind of "short sketchof the Bible." Its spirituality is "generally identical with that of theEarly Church." Besides reference to Scripture, the commentary bringsin those sources of patristic-monastic tradition that Benedict himselfknew or from which he could have drawn.

Holzherr thus wishes to open up "an access to the particularspiritual world of Benedict," which established in the sixth century a"synthesis between the spirituality of the East and the West." In thisway, the commentator is following a demand of Vatican Council II,which urged not only monks but all Christians to become familiarwith the Oriental Fathers. For these writers "lead humanity in all itsdimensions to reflection on the things of God."

In a "spiritual hermeneutic" (Puzicha), Holzherr thus illuminatesthe text of the RB with patristic and monastic texts, the contemporaryrelevance of which he considers obvious. By this means, he leads usto a meditative, prayerful reading of the RB, and to an inner evaluationand opening of the self before God. Lying behind this is the basicconviction that the overall ascesis of the RB will ultimately prepare usfor a "theology (divine vision) of the heart."

The commentary has been translated into Polish, English, Italianand Czech. In the year 2005 it had already gone into its sixth edition.

CONTEXTUALLY BOUND BENEDICTINE MONASTICISM(Terrence Kardong)

In the United States of the twentieth century, scholarly researchand exegesis of the RB and sources remained far behind biblicalexegesis and monastic research in Europe. People generally said thatAmerican monasticism tended to "activism" and "pragmatism," with

" Georg Holzherr, Die Benediktsregel. Eine Anleitung zu christlichem Leben (Zürich-Einsiedeln-Köln 1980); ET Piaeid Murray (Dublin: Four Courts 1994).

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O.S.B. 147

little interest in serious monastic studies, Terrence Kardong (1936-), amonk of Assumption Abbey in Richardton, ND, a theologian, Latinistand editor of The American Benedictine Review, was already, as aseminarian, unhappy with the traditional commentaries on the Rule, Inhis view, they were more like chapter talks than scholarly exegesis.

After doing graduate studies at the Monastic Institute in Rome,Kardong devoted himself entirely to research on the Rule, In articlesand talks, he made known in the United States the results of Europeanscholarship, but also his own findings. His goal was an "Americanrereading" of the monastic tradition. After he had explicated almostthe entire Rule in this fashion, he decided to publish a summary in theform of his own commentary on the Rule,'^

Kardong offers a philologically based word-for-word commentaryon the Latin text, which also stimulates, provokes meditation and isexistentially challenging, not least in its focus on Christ, The readeris invited to a lectio divina, which has nothing in common with piouspleasantries, but is based on the more solid foundation of what themonastic researcher and translator has found in his own life, Kardongdoes not hesitate to employ a psychologically marked Americanvocabulary, speaking of obedience as "ego-reduction," calling themonastic community a "system," and warning the abbot not to thinkof himself as a all-powerful, all-knowing "guru,"

In his use of the historical-critical method, Kardong not onlyreads the RB in the light of the monastic context from which it comes.He also criticizes Benedict's biblical interpretation on the basis ofcontemporary exegetical findings. The analytic commentary findsits synthesis in a persistent focus on the community: RB 72 is thehermeneutieal key to understanding the entire Rule, Passages of theRule which feature the individualistic tradition of the Egyptian DesertEathers are consistently expanded from the communitarian point ofview. In this way, Kardong reacts to an RB hermeneutic, such as thatof Vbgüé, which promotes the first chapters of the Rule.

His commentary, which has long been needed, provides for theAnglophone world and beyond an outstanding expansion of theAmerican edition of the Rule called RB 1980. This latter work hadalready years before provided the American monks and nuns witha working instrument to fill the pressing need for a historical andtheological deepening in the understanding of the Rule of Benedict,

'̂ Terrence Kardong, Benedict's Rule. A Translation and Commentary (Collegeville, MN:1996).

148 ABR 6 1 : 2 - J U N E 2010

These few incursions into the broad, many-sided terrain of Rulecommentaries in the twentieth century already make one thing clear:the exegesis of the Regula Benedicti was and is always relevant.In the form of Rule commentaries we find the history and meaningof Benedictine monasticism, its aspirations and its responses to thedemands of the time. Progress in scholarly research flows into it andmarks its concrete hermeneutic. On the other hand. Rule commentariespossess a not-to-be-underestimated potential for witness to theirtimes. Precisely in times of crisis and revolution in church and society,they contribute to an anchoring of monasticism and, far beyond themonastery, they offer all Christians a road into the future.

MANUELA SCHEIBA, O,S,B, 149

Copyright of American Benedictine Review is the property of American Benedictine Review and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.