Adelbert de Vogüé is a a monk of the Benedictine Abbaye Ste-Marie de la Pierre-qui-Vire. He has a doctorate in theology and studied patristics and ancient monasticism at St. Anselms in Rome. Since 1974, he has lived in a hermitage close to his monastery. The Abbey runs a farm specialising in cheese making.

   During his life he has written several books which have pioneered - or perhaps renewed - a bridge between the Benedictine cenobia and the eremitical life. He is a significant source for the interpretation of the Rule underlying the ethos of Sancti Angeli Benedictine Skete.

  In his Doctrinal and Spiritual Commentary on the Rule of St. Benedict, he treats of the relationship between community and solitary life, especially in his analysis of RB Ch. 2 - The Kinds of Monks, which he sets in context of the Rule of the Master and Cassian’s compilation of Northern Egyptian monastic sources, in the Conferences and Institutes.

  In Chapter One he has set the scene by pointing out the importance of St. Matthew’s Gospel, as the doctrinal basis for the ethical formation of monks. St. Matthew lays out the principles of discipleship under the ‘master,’ Jesus Christ. The community of the baptised follows the same principle - their ‘master’ or ‘abba’ is the Bishop. Following on, those dedicated to the evangelical counsels are a schola - school - taught by the Abbot. By this means we arrive at Benedict’s definition of the monastery as a ‘school of the Lord’s service.

   Who is in the school? Here Benedict enumerates the kinds of monks. This chapter is closely modelled on the teaching of Abbot Piamun (Cassian, Conference 18). It is also closely linked to RB7, on humility, which gives us guidelines on the formation of the monk’s character. The Master’s, and following him, Benedict’s, reliance on Northern Egyptian monastic sources, is significant. In Northern Egyptian monasticism, the way of life was largely solitary and semi-solitary - Kellia, Nitria and St. Anthony’s monastery are well known names. In these places the cenobitic and semi-cenobitic/semi eremitic life of kellia and skete opened out into the life of the hermit. Monks, formed in community and mature in their vocation, retired to the deeper desert for a life of intense solitude and ceaseless prayer. As ealy as 384 CE, a Latin observer held as an obvious fact that every Egyptian anchorite received his first formation in a cenobium.

  De Vogüé points out that, following this model, Benedict does not simply exclude the hermit life. The cenobium represents the practika  stage - the active formation of the monk’s character: the hermitage represents the stage of theoria - the contemplative life, built on the basis of practika. Benedict wants his monks to first learn to fight spiritual evil together, building up their way of life into a ‘spiritual armour.’ From this monastic army, some members will go out to the ‘single combat’ of the desert. De Vogüé dubs this ‘open cenobitism,’ in which  the cenobitic life can ‘empty out’ into an eremitic stage.

  Because the monk may become a hermit, it does not follow that he will ‘leave’ his monastery or renounce his monastic vocation for another. The monastic tradition of the time assumes that the hermit will, to the same degree as the cenobite, ‘persevere in the monastery until death.’ By confining himself to the narrow strictures of the hermitage he is merely moving out to a more isolated part of the monastic grounds. It is not the self indulgent life of the sarabite - who eschews obedience, nor the restless travel of the gyrovague, which Benedict’s hermit aims at. It is a greater asceticism and deeper obedience he seeks. he has listened in the monastery with the ‘ear of his heart’ - aurem cordis tui - and he is ready to listen more deeply.

  Benedict then returns to the formation of the ‘school of the Lord’s service,’ out of which this eremitical life will, for some, emerge. It is, he believes, folly to bypass community life in the rush to the hermitage. Firstly the monastic character must be forged.

  Our weakness in this age is that our cenobitic monasteries in the west, on the whole, do not expect to have hermits among their members. Ask an Abbot nowadays to form you in the hermit life and he will probably say that he has no idea how to do it and it is not his job! There is unlikely to be anyone among his monks which mature experience of the hermit life who can help either.

  This leaves the prospective hermit with very few choices, particularly if the ‘he’ is a ‘she!’  Monasteries which allow eremitic life are exceptions and - compared with the eastern tradition - extremely limited in their scope. If he or she approached his local Bishop to profess under 603, no monastic formation will be available, except for the privileged few who may be granted an indult through a sympathetic community. They cannot however expect to be part of a community for life, so will most likely become, ipse facto, Benedict’s pet hate - sarabites or gyrovagues! They will most often be objects of contempt to clergy and monks alike.

   What is needed is a thorough re-think of the hermit life, integrated within monastic life. Existing congregations cannot do this - their constitutions are almost all exclusively cenobitic and it requires all the voting members of a Congregation to sign up to a change in Constitutions.  The chances of a Congregation doing this for what may well appear as one or two disaffected or problem members of community are remote! 

  The only practical way seems to be, as indicated in the Commentary on the present Code of Canon Law, in respect of canon 603, through the formation of lavras and the similar sketes, incorporating a sound monastic formation. Canon 603 is an impossible situation which is nevertheless better than no path at all! St. Benedict tells us (RB 68) that, faced with an impossible task which cannot be evaded, one must attempt the task in a spirit of gentleness and obedience, trusting in God’s help.

  This is the intention of Sancti Angeli Benedictine Skete.

Return to Main Site