St. Benedict’s Rule for Monasteries (516)
gutenberg.org
gutenberg.org
Ancedotal evidence but the wife of one of my cousins explicitly chose not to work in spite of having the required qualifications as a dentist, simply because she doesn't want to work and just wants to raise her children. Even though they live in an expensive city. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find such examples these days.
On the other hand, I have cousins in marriages where both are forced to work because they live in an expensive city where one person's salary is often not enough to cover living expenses. And as trends go, I think we'll be seeing more of the workers by "force" example in the coming years.
Increasingly the trend I've observed within my large extended family and my fiancée's family (different cultures altogether) is that the wives in more affluent families tend to work as either housewives or in less taxing roles where they can still take care of the house, even if they can afford servants and carers, while the less affluent ones are required to have two breadwinners.
Many people are in a situation where they can't make the choice to exclusively do care work, due to financial constraints, and much of the care work is done by women who also work for money alongside of it. So in a way, being wealthy enough to have one person concentrate on maintaining the house is lucky. At the same time, it's a risky choice, because it leads to financial dependency on the partner, and marriages tend to end.
Liberties constrain, constraints liberate.
The things we can lear from programming language theory!
Seek freedom and be a slave to your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.
Reminds me of this part of a Thomas Merton audio piece that I just listened to which you might enjoy (~22:50 to ~35:01): https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1370&v=Zr3V-BnENmA&feature=y...
"In Catholicsm, the Pint, the Pipe, and the Cross can all fit together." ~ GK Chesterton.
Consumption of alcohol is mandatory at certain times (as part of Mass) and forbidden at other times (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but traditionally every Friday and all of Lent).
Also I thought I was going to be corrected on the other part of my claim. Apparently abstaining from alcohol on fast days isn't centralized Catholic doctrine and bishops/archbishops have some discretion on what they tell their congregations to abstain from.
In the middle ages, 'small beer' [0] was a low-alcohol drink which because of the brewing process was often safer than bacteria-contaminated water from some natural sources such as wells and streams
While some Methodists now drink alcohol, they historically didn't and still won't allow it in their church buildings (I used to play in an amateur orchestra who had to serve non-alcoholic interval refreshments when we hired a Methodist church for our concert).
The majority of Christians worldwide, though, belong to denominations with no proscription against alcohol.
Besides the rules to give the Trappist label were :
* The beer must be brewed within the walls of a Trappist monastery, either by the monks themselves or under their supervision.
* The brewery must be of secondary importance within the monastery and it should witness to the business practices proper to a monastic way of life.
* The brewery is not intended to be a profit-making venture. The income covers the living expenses of the monks and the maintenance of the buildings and grounds. Whatever remains is donated to charity for social work and to help persons in need.
Yesterday I saw this on Project Gutenberg and I felt inspired to share it here. I woke up and saw it on the front page, which is always an interesting little thing that kind of makes my day.
I would be really interested in hearing more about your experience in the monastery, if you're willing to share.
While some monasteries were strict regardless, others pushed the boundaries. Relating to "CHAPTER 39 On the Measure of Food" for example, monk's meals were supposed to "have two cooked dishes". On the other hand, monks could accept gifts from the abbot "And it shall be in the Abbot’s power to decide to whom it shall be given". Naturally in some refectories, the abbot would receive dishes which he would then direct to other tables thus skirting the two dishes rule.
If you're interested in this and more, Max Miller's Medieval Rule Breakers[1] episode has many more examples
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz0y1d6IIpY
Edit: It seems as selimthegrim has beaten me to the punch with the link
As I mentioned in my other comments where God in the Quran has exposed and cautioned the monks (in Chapter "Hadid" or "Iron") who were not observing their own made up rules during their monastic period seeking God's good pleasure, for the exercise of monasticsm that were not originally prescribed or enjoined in their own God's scriptures, oh the irony! Pardon the pun :-)
> Whenever any important business has to be done in the monastery, let the Abbot call together the whole community and state the matter to be acted upon. Then, having heard the brethren’s advice, let him turn the matter over in his own mind and do what he shall judge to be most expedient. The reason we have said that all should be called for counsel is that the Lord often reveals to the younger what is best.
> But if the business to be done in the interests of the monastery be of lesser importance, let him take counsel with the seniors only. It is written, “Do everything with counsel, and you will not repent when you have done it.”
This is certainly an interesting take on "new hires bring fresh new ideas."
Ora et labora.
I would have said that HN is social media; in your view, is the distinction that you don't post things to a personal timeline here? (Certainly even seeing HN as social media I wouldn't mind treating it as a special case)
This is true for twitter/facebook/friendster, but not for hn/reddit/slashdot.
Some of the negative effects of online communities are shared by both kind of things, but not all.
For one, an almost universally overlooked bit of history is how absolutely crucial muslim scholars were in preserving classical texts, in keeping an unbroken chain from the Classical Age until the Renaissance. Places like Al-Andalus -- muslim Iberia that is -- or Bagdhad, were the centres of knowledge in the world in their time, and also places of surprisingly high religious tolerance, where Christian, Jewish, and Muslim scholars studied and discussed together. Many translators and schools of translators were founded and supported, and that's the path countless Greek and Roman tomes took until our days: translated to Arabic, later "rediscovered" by the West.
Among Christian monks, on the other hand, for centuries starting around 300-400CE the highest goal was asceticism, one of the corolaries of which was that one should waste no time studying or preserving pagan texts or indeed anything which were not: prayer books, missals, homilies, responsories, etc. An innumerable amount of works were lost during the centuries where Christian monasticism was most active. If indeed the monks preserved that ancient, pagan knowledge, then how can this be?
Not to mention the fact that Christians post-Constantine and Theodosious were engaged in brutal and relentless persecution and suppression of non-Christians, so called "pagans", and pagan art, pagan temples, pagan beliefs, and of course, pagan literature. They burned temples and all the art therein, they burned libraries, they suppressed academies and professors, either by force or by ending the state's patronage,
This paper is a great read, admittedly biased in its sources but not misleading (it cites contemporary opponents, rather than christians): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27899562.pdf
I think its somewhat inevitable that pagan works would be lost over the centuries, and less surprising that they would survive in dryer climates. Ultimately, I think to make the christians look particularly oppresive and destructive one has to overlook a lot of pagan violence. In the case of the islamic world, we can say for sure that there was a general destruction of churches, existing infrastructure and a general looting of most of the areas that came under islamic domination. And this is the pattern for the exchange of cultures nothing unusual. Taking the Dome of the Rock for an illustrative example - the Mosque at the dome of the rock began as a looted Marian shrine, built over the ancient roman temple which the romans themselves built over Herod's second temple.
Tier 1 (most intolerant): Suppress the out-group vigorously, including executions, torture, secret police, interrogations, etc.
Tier 2: Suppress the out-group violently (executions) any time they're noisy, but don't seek them out.
Tier 3: Disfavour the out-group, without permitting conversion.
Tier 4: Disfavour the out-group, permitting them to convert.
Tier 5: Disfavour the out-group socially and informally, but not in matters of enforced law.
Tier 6 (most tolerant): It's illegal to disfavour the out-group.
The reason I mention this is that modern notions of religious tolerance target maximum tolerance (Tier 6 or whatever), but there's a lot of variety through history. For example, I think that persecution of Jews under the Romans was, in some cases, only because the Jews were unwilling to also in-form-only obey the dictates of Roman religion (2nd Commandment makes that tricky). Contrast that with Nazi persecution of Jews, which was much more aggressive about seeking them out. It's worth it to identify that one of those is more tolerant than the other, even if we wish for our society to be more tolerant than either of those.
In that context, my understanding is that the Muslim law of the medieval period is pretty clear about tolerance, and that both Al-Andalus and Baghdad followed these rules. "People of the Book", i.e. non-Muslim monotheists, were granted a large set of very specific protections, while still being treated less well than Muslims. (Note that non-monotheists were not granted protections; I imagine that this did not result in much religious tolerance towards those people, but that's just a cynical guess.) These specific protections were strong enough that it made sense for non-conformist scholars (Christian or Jew, as long as they were monotheist) to migrate from Christendom to Dar al-Islam. Compared to modern west-coast notions of religious tolerance, this isn't great. But it's still remarkable and praiseworthy, especially in contrast with modern Sharia, and in contrast with then-contemporary Christian kingdoms.
In summary: it's not that medieval Muslim states were tolerant by modern humanist standards. It's that they were more tolerant than modern Sharia Muslim states, and more tolerant than medieval Christian states.
The importance of Ancient Greek literature in the Byzantine Empire is readily evident from things like Homer remaining a cornerstone of Byzantine education all the way through the first millennium, and Christian polemicists starting to write in Attic Greek instead of the Koine.
If you want to see just how much of the Greek tradition was preserved in the Christian world, and not the Muslim world, simply visit the Classical Philology section of any university library and look at the manuscript sources (including, yes, monastery copies) of any Oxford Classical Texts or Bibliotheca Teubneriana edition of Greek writers.
The Muslim centers are not only preserving ancient Greek learning and books, they are cherishing and enriching them for several hundreds years [1]. To them these ancient Greek books are equivalent of modern days da Vinci's paintings that can be weight in gold, literally no kidding. At the time, if you are doing translation of any Greek texts you can get paid by the weight of the translation in gold equivalent! Please tell me at any other time this is happening in any part of human history or even now.
It's also reported that at one time, Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma'mun was demanding an original copy of the Ptolemy's Almagest book as the condition of a truce between Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Empire. This is really something big because based on the saying of Muhammad that prophesizes any Muslim leader who can defeated and conquered Byzantine Empire (Constantinople) is the best leader ever. He basically abandoning this potential privilege title because of an original copy of Ptolemy's book. If you think he is too weak to defeat Byzantine and resorting to lame truce, please think again. He basically conquered and subjugated entire modern day Afghanistan for good, and only a few legendary leaders that even managed to do that including your beloved Alexander the Great. For the record, the mighty British Empire and USA did not manage to do just that.
Al-Ma'mun is also the founder of the "House of Wisdom" where Al-Khwarizmi was the first director of the center and his name is very familiar because apparently the "algebra" and "algorithm" words were derived from his book title and his names, respectively. Because of his contribution to science one crater in the moon (Almanon) is named after him[2].
Believe it or not, according to some of modern historians, the extreme love for knowledge of the Abbasid Empire was partly blamed on the downfall of the Abbasid Empire at the expense of Islamic spirituality. This perhaps mainly due to the Islamic teaching that says after you're dead there are only three things that can increase you deeds in the hereafter. Firstly your God fearing children, secondly your donated and lively wealth for charity (waqaf) and thirdly your contributions to the knowledge that are beneficial to other people.
[1]How Modern Science Came Into The World, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt45kddd
Again, go look at the manuscript sources for all those OCT and Teubner editions.
Just for the sake of arguments, even if the Cristian world have most of their copies, are having the back up copies by the Muslim world really help preserving the books when there was no Google Drive around?
At least we probably can agree that these Muslim scholars were not only appreciating but they were also cherishing the Greek books just like we are cherishing the PlayStation 5 not only appreciating it. For them it is part of their religious duty to contribute and spread the knowledge regardless they were from India, China or Greek. You need to understand that these scholars not only preserved the book but they cherished them. It's given fact that you only keep what you value and cherish, and by nature human are selective hoarders. Without the ransack of Baghdad by the Mongol where the rivers turned blue/black by the ink of the thrown and demolished books it's probably not an exaggeration to say that we probably living in Mars by now. The fact that the lesser backup copies in Toledo, Spain that fell into the European hands essentially initiated the knowledge revolutions or renaissance as they called it today.
[1]https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/12/27/these-are-m...
While you might be very proud that the Muslim world preserved (a very few) Greek and Latin sources that were also held by the Christian world, that is irrelevant to the discussion launched by the OP.
Even Columba Stewart would agree, like the rest of scholars engaged in matters of textual transmission, that the great majority of Latin and Greek writers that have come down to us today, came down through manuscript traditions in the Christian world, and the Muslim world has contributed only in a few cases.
Of all people, the Christian Coptic Pope is the culprit who ordered the demolition of the great library in the 4th century CE. The Muslim Empire and scholars somehow managed to scrambled majority of the Greek civilization learning and books of what have been left after the destruction, and also significantly add their own knowledge contributions. The effort resulted in the two greatest centers of ancient texts in the world by the 11th century CE.
Baghdad center was ransacked to the ashes, and majority of the stored books and manuscripts demolished. The only surviving secondary or lesser center of the two was Toledo. Toledo fell to the Spaniard in 11th century. Benedict the abbot who in charged of more than 600 monastery has ordered the clergy to literally copy and also translate books and scriptures from the center in Toledo. In Toledo there existed original Arabic books on the new knowledge, Arabic translations of Greek books and scriptures that otherwise have been lost forever, and perhaps many copies of the original books of Greek civilization but we probably never knew the exact composition since this happened about a thousand years back. These copies of the books and manuscripts were ordered to be kept in these many monasteries, and the books and manuscripts remained there for centuries. If you think only a few works (less than five) of the ancient Greek works that were preserved during the time due to the Muslim empire and scholars efforts, I really want to know what are the things that you are smoking at the moment?
With regard to Toledo, you appear to have read some pop-sci articles about it that made you excited, but you overestimate its impact. We know the provenance of the manuscripts of the Greek and Latin writers that have come down to us, and Toledo played absolutely no role in the transmission of most of them. Again, Greek and Latin manuscript studies is a well-established field.
Finally, none of what you have been posting is relevant to this subthread, and if you really want foreigners to appreciate the erudition of the Muslim world, getting your information right is important. With your carelessness about the facts, you are only damaging your own cause.
The Christian establishment in the antiquity and the middle age were so anti-knowledge that it was the opposite of Muslim empire at the time. The anti-knowledge behavior has been exposed by movement such as Renaissance (technology) and Protestant (religion). Do you know that by law at the time you cannot translate Bible to other local languages in many part of Europe until a few centuries back? Yes, that is the main reason you have the Protestant movement.
Regarding the effect the Toledo it is mentioned in the article by your own foremost Greek learning and manuscript expert in the so called pop science articles by Dr Columba Stewart and also other similar experts. It seems that you denied most if their relevant claims regarding Toledo. If you don't mind can you please tell me what is your credentials and expertises in Greek learning history that you have disagreed with most of these reputable scholars regarding the matter?
Anyway in Arabic the non-believers are referred to as "kafir", literally means the "denial of the truth".
I am thankful we the works saved by Muslims, but there has been a gross over reaction where the true source of most of our knowledge of the classical world has been ignored so people can score woke points for praising non western cultures and erasing the contributions of the west and christendom.
I'm a Catholic, and this is the rule that amuses me the most.
The monks were willing to give up most material possessions and submit to a life of poverty, obedience, and sexual abstinence... but the one thing they couldn't be persuaded to give up was the hooch.
In Judaism: Every Sabbath, you bless and drink wine. Every Passover, you drink four cups of wine. Every Purim, you are commanded to drink to your happiness.
In some denominations of Christianity: You drink wine as part of the Eucharist.
On the other hand, I think in Islam, drinking wine is forbidden. So different religions have different views on drink.
And even if wine wouldn't be banned, I think the wine would be stored under lock and key, if only to avoid consumption outside of meals
There were many monasteries where beer and wine making were part of their business model.
Wine is normally made from pure juice, and isn't heated at any point in the process. But again, it's made from pure juice: the inside of a grape is not a usual place to find dangerous bacteria, and on the outside one would normally find only the yeasts which produce the fermentation.
Modern wine-making washes the grapes thoroughly and adds yeast, the old-school method was simply to crush, and rely on the surface bloom and residual yeast in the vessel to do the work. Which lead to rather more vinegar than the modern vintner would tolerate.
Grape juice for wine, as it can’t be heated without ruining it, is usually lightly sulphited for a day or three before adding yeast, which kills the bacteria present in the juice.
The original vision for Benedict was a self-sufficient and isolated community, keeping interactions with the outside world to a minimum.
“Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.”
Perhaps, although I don't think in the way I'd take your statement. Chesterton was quite opposed to the idea that drinking would be medicinal (although maybe he would have allowed that happiness is good medicine?). From the context[1]:
> A new morality has burst upon us with some violence in connection with the problem of strong drink; and enthusiasts in the matter range from the man who is violently thrown out at 12.30, to the lady who smashes American bars with an axe. In these discussions it is almost always felt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine or such stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I should venture to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinely dangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as a medicine. And for this reason, If a man drinks wine in order to obtain pleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something he does not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is a little insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if a man drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to get something natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without; something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to being without. The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of being ecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy of being ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to a strong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument," doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off the Monument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it to a blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under a heavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eyes whenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing at daybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult to deny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctor knows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick even when they need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think the giving of alcohol to the sick for stimulus is necessarily unjustifiable. But I do mean that giving it to the healthy for fun is the proper use of it, and a great deal more consistent with health.
[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/470/470-h/470-h.htm (search for "Omar and the Sacred Vine" -- chapter 7).
I think that's right. If people use cannabis or alcohol when depressed, consistently, I think it digs a deeper hole. On the other hand, combining drugs with happy moments can create a state dependent memory that allows a "storing up" of positivity. Smoking cannabis at the top of mountains, before going to museums or at concerts -- it builds a state that -- i believe-- can come out during a neutral use. It's a key approach to "virtuous drug use", which I think is important to communicate as a possibility. For a moral society, better to associate drugs with moral behavior than immoral.
And for the love of heck don't try and find a surrogate mom/dad. Do your own housekeeping and maintenance, earn your own money, live your own life before sharing it with another. Especially in my parents' generation, a lot of people went from home to live with their SO. People like my dad who never learned to cook and only had to get to grips with it when my mom started to work evenings. Mind you, that's also when I learned.
Anyway, modern day advice, try to live on your own for a while before living with someone else.
I agree completely, wish I would have learned it sooner.
But if we run out, above all there will be no complaining.
What made you go and what made you leave though ?
> Major religious texts from modern world religions, like the Bible or the Koran, will not be accepted. Texts about religion will usually be accepted. Texts from historical religious movements that were culturally influential but are now defunct, or are otherwise not significant in modern times, might be accepted; ask first. https://standardebooks.org/contribute/accepted-ebooks
Rule of St. Benedict is at https://ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule/rule
Of course, copyright trolls :)
Workaround: https://web.archive.org/web/20180911045657/https://www.guten...
(Welcome to 2021, the year Silicon Valley went Catholic...)
Alternative link, possibly bit different from gutenberg edition, but should be still the same translation
> Care must be taken that no monk presume on any ground to defend another monk in the monastery, or as it were to take him under his protection, even though they be united by some tie of blood-relationship. Let not the monks dare to do this in any way whatsoever, because it may give rise to most serious scandals. But if anyone breaks this rule, let him be severely punished.
I have a grievance always with “it” for making it so hard for the most of us to access. But i practice.
I wish you all find the power to forgive your enemies, and discover the hidden ones within us all.
There certainly are teachings that one might find in different religions, but to say that "all prophets are indeed one" and "how budha, christ and allah and all other gods stem from that one thing which we encounter after long meditations and prayer . . . .", does not match up with what is taught in buddhism, christianity and islam.
In buddhism the goal is Nirvana, which is reached after extinction of greed, aversion and ignorance, leading to release from the cycle of rebirth.[1]
In christianity, the saviour is Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me", [John 14:6], and "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin". [1 John 1:7]
And the result of faith in Jesus is heaven, which is described in this way (a couple of glimpses): "Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. [Revelation 21:1-2] "They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever."[Revelation 22:5]
In islam, one of the five pilars is: "I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God."[2]
Salvation in the afterlife: "According to the Quran, the basic criterion for salvation in the afterlife is the belief in the oneness of God (tawḥīd), angels of God, revealed books of God, all messengers of God, as well as repentance to God, and doing good deeds. Though one must do good deeds and believe in God, salvation can only be attained through God's judgment.[3] "Jannah is described as an eternal dwelling (Q3:136), with its supreme felicity and greatest bliss being God's good pleasure (Q9:72)".[4]
The teachings in buddhism, christianity and islam are therefore very different, and points to completely different ways of salvation and afterlife. They all can't be true at the same time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jannah#Muslims
You may be interested in Process Theology, which essentially argues for this exact thing.
seek truth within yourself brother - if you chase interpretation and opinion, you will spiral down. The truth itself is within you, in your flesh, inside your mind is an undying light surrounded by your traumas/impurities. Don't try to assume .. simply discover - the mind wishes to argue its way around truth and console itself with what it thinks is intellectual, but its just a battery of randomness.
Call it what we may, jhanna, yana, grace .. the understanding is truth itself - i wont and cant convince you, its work left for you.
I for one, do not see separation a anymore
Some favorites:
"When two monks meet they should each try to be the first to show respect to the other,"and, the abbot must “arrange everything that the strong have something to yearn for and the weak have nothing to run from.”
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/32198.Monasteries_and_Co...
https://ccel.org/ccel/gregory/life_rule.html
(from another site with other good early church items)
It is interesting to note that monasticism is neither prescribed nor enjoined in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments [1]. It is, however, mentioned in the Quran that monasticism is rather an invention by the People of the Books namely Christians and Jews [2]. According to the Quran, it's invented for the monks to seek God's good pleasure, but apparently most of the monks do not observe it as it ought to have been observed. Perhaps this book and manual from St. Benedict provided us with the most authentic and comprehensive descriptions of the rules of the monks' observations during the classical antiquity. By reading the rules I can appreciate why the monks have failed observe them ;-). Adding to the fact that it predates the Quran, these type of observations that were probably being referred to by the Quran.
Fun fact, there is an Ashtiname (Book of Peace), a letter sent by Muhammad to the Saint Catherine's Monastery [3]. The purpose is to guarantee the safety of its monks living there against any potential aggression by the Muslim individuals or army. Given the monastery is still exist and standing today despite of being there for more than a thousand years under Islamic government rule is probably the testament of the effectiveness of the covenant provided by the Ashtiname.
[1]https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/monasticism...
[2]https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=57&verse=26...
Did he not read the Bible or does he demand circumcision?
Every age and degree of understanding should have its proper measure of discipline. With regard to boys and adolescents, therefore, or those who cannot understand the seriousness of the penalty of excommunication, whenever such as these are delinquent let them be subjected to severe fasts or brought to terms by harsh beatings, that they may be cured.
Visit the sick, bury the dead, and console the sorrowing.
In light of Matthew 23:9 [0], this practice concerns me.
[0] - “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven”
> Call no man father? Do Catholics violate Jesus' command in Matthew 23? Dr. Brant Pitre examines this passage in order to explain the meaning of the command to call no man father.
Also, St. Paul says you don't have many Fathers in the faith but he is one.
So in combination it means that no one on Earth replaces God as Father and Lord of all. Pope, Patriarch, Bishop, Priest whoever, insofar as they submit to God, submit to them. Otherwise resist and refute them.
Many spiritual texts stress obedience to the master/abbot/what-have-you both because of the presumption that the senior knows more than the junior, but also because it reinforces that the service is offered to something greater and not for the (material) benefit of the one doing the service.
I haven't had time to go over everything but I would be surprised if it's truly unquestioning rather than just unhesitating. Something whose purpose is not understood should probably lead to contemplation and then discussion with the abbot to confirm the understanding.
I don't know about you, but for me the obvious way in which politicians and other powerful sorts have abused and perverted religious devices (and systems of control) to achieve their own ends has left a really bad taste in my mouth generally w.r.t anything "control-y' about religion.
The religious motivation behind control in monasteries is something different, though (at least when uncorrupted by politics and power).
Monasteries are, by design, very controlled environments. That's _exactly_ what they are supposed to be.
A place where you can safely get lost in ecstatic bliss, altered states of consciousness and the sometimes-difficult psychological territory of self discovery that typically follows these experiences.
The guard rails are put there by people who have travelled the road before and know what the pitfalls are.
For anyone curious about that (from a Christian monastery context):
* Cloud of Unknowing (Anonymous)
* The Dark Night of the Soul (St. John of the Cross)
* The Interior Castle (Teresa of Ávila)
Similar material exists for guiding e.g. Buddhist monks through the sort of territory that comes up when people spend a lot of time alone in contemplation (The Visuddhimagga, The Vimuttimagga in the Theravada tradition, The Tibetan Book of the Dead in the Vajrayana tradition).
Shamanic traditions likewise have very strict schedules of diet and spiritual preparation before aspirants can consume psychedelics - and ceremonies are (traditionally) performed under exquisitely controlled conditions.
Incidentally - westerners who play with meditative technologies or "psychedelic" therapies absent a regular, working relationship with a guide who know the territory do so at their own peril, IMO.
Thousands of years of contemplative and meditative practice have yielded independently arising systems in many different cultures which call for a controlled environment where a practitioner is surrounded by peers who know what to do, and more importantly what _not_ to do when things get a bit weird.
That's JUST for the individual practitioner.
Now add another layer for "things that can go wrong when trying to manage / lead a large community of people doing these things together".
Many mystical traditions (particularly eastern ones) solve this problem by having rules about how long monks and abbots can stay in one place.
Here, we see some western solutions to the common problems of community governance (at least: the sorts of problems one was likely to encounter at the time).
I've meandered really widely around the point! :)
Really I just wanted to call out that there is a valid (within the context of the goals of spiritual practice) use for a very controlled environment that should be considered separately from the common understanding of "religious control" (i.e. the powerful and political abusing religious devices to exert control over the masses).
> What Are the Instruments of Good Works
> [...]
> 63. To love chastity.
Monasteries from pretty early on required celibacy. According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_in_the_Cat..., priests did get married until the 12th century (even then, some say there was an unenforced law rule on the books saying that wasn't supposed to happen) .
While there were some theological and worldly reasons for the change, competition with lords wasn't one, and doesn't make a lot of sense. Religious communities were largely populated by the children of the nobles, and nobles gave to monasteries. (And again, wouldn't apply, since only non-monastic priests were married.)
On the other hand, bishops must be monks as well as priests, and therefore cannot be married.
2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)