Chapter two of The Rule of St. Benedict1 informs us that “an Abbot who is worthy of ruling over a monastery ought always to be mindful of what he is called—a Superior—and make his actions reflect his very name” (106). Understanding this injunction and demonstrating its implementation throughout the Rule will make clear the role of the Abbot as Superior within the monastery.

To explain this quotation concerning the worthy Abbot, it must be considered within the context of which it is delivered in the second chapter of the Rule, titled What Kind of Man an Abbot Ought To Be. The aforementioned quotation is followed by this explanation: “For [the Abbot] is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, since he is called by His name … ‘Ye have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba—Father”’ (106). The Abbot is the superior insofar as he embodies Christ, the brothers of the monastery his adopted sons—if he is mindful of what he is called, he will care for the spiritual health of these as Christ would. The rest of his duties follow suit: like Christ on the Judgement seat he “…must always bear in mind that at the dread Judgement of God he must give an account both of his own teaching and of the obedience of his disciples” (106). His responsibilities over his children will be accounted for, and he will face consequences in proportion to how he answered this calling. He must be able to say, in his judgement, that “I have not hid Thy justice within my heart. I have declared Thy truth and Thy salvation” (106). From this, we ascertain that he must not only be privately holy but publicly as well. Like Christ, his actions must demonstrate his faith. The Rule states: “let him show by his actions, that whatever he teaches his disciples as being contrary to the law of God must not be done” (107). He will show no distinction of persons, for he will “not love one more than the other, unless it be someone found exemplary in good works and obedience” as Christ exemplified (107). If Christ is the Rule, so too be the Abbot. He will be grave when the community is lax, benign when it is obedient: “Mingling gentleness with severity, as the occasion may call for” (107-108). Above all things, as stated before, he must remember “what he is and what he is called … Let him so adjust and adapt himself to everyone … that he not only suffer no loss in his flock, but may rejoice in the increase of a worthy fold” (108). With Christ he is the Shepherd of his flock, armed with a crozier for catching. The preeminence of the title ‘Superior’ is derived from it being synonymous with the identity of Christ.

To support the claim that the worthiness of the Abbot comes from his remembrance of his title, we must demonstrate how this manifests throughout the Rule, especially in regard to his actions. By the interchangeability of Christ and the Superior, the unifying figures of the monastery, we can divide their function in the Rule into three kinds of unities, those of Community, Formation, and Prayer, a similar division to Benedict’s own injunction to “teach, authorize, [and] command” (106). His actions made clear, it may be shown how the Abbot reflects his namesake and Christ.

The Abbot is the rule of the Community insofar as he unites them in their common life, their shared purpose, not strictly surrounding prayer and morality. This is the abbot as the Christlike temporal father, in his reception of “the spirit of adoption of sons” as mentioned. The father listens to the concerns of his children in the ‘calling of council’, wherein matters are mulled over by the brothers united with the Abbot. The Rule states: “Let the Abbot call together the whole community, and make known the matter which is to be considered. Having heard the brethren’s council, let him weigh the matter with himself and do what he thinks best” (109). The father houses and provides rest for his children: “Let them receive bedding appropriate to their mode of life, as the Abbot directs” (129). He feeds them by the direction of his cellarer (133) and equips them by the appointment of workers (135). Just as “‘there is no respect of persons with God’” the abbot divides up property among the brethren, not according to favoritism but to necessity (107). The father cares for the sick, knowing it was Christ who said: “‘I was sick and you visited me’” (137). So too the Abbot exercises “the utmost care so that the sick are not neglected” (138). Even a cursory view of the Gospels demonstrates Christ as the rule of his small community—He is the exemplar of the Abbot’s virtues in regard to his disciples.

The Abbot is the rule of Formation within the monastery insofar as he unites the brothers in their common discipline of morality. This is the Abbot as the Christlike moral father, forming his children and providing “an imitation of his master—Christ” which is necessary before one communicates through prayer (87). If not already evident, formation begins in obedience to “the commands of the Abbot in all things” (112). This is the passive principle of the brethren, in reception to the many active principles manifest in that title ‘Superior’ of the Abbot. The Abbot regulates the quantity of food, as well as the time at which it is had: “…it is left to the discretion and power of the Abbot to add something [of food]” (139). It is the Abbot who may repeal and (presumably) enforce the silence of the community (142). The abbot applies the punishment for the tardy (143) and considers the frailty of the weak (147). The brethren confide in the Abbot about their fasting and abstinence—he is their guide (148). Whatever else pertains to the habits of the brethren which form them is at the discretion of the abbot. It is he who regulates their connection to the outside world and their clothing (151). He alone admits and denies entry of brethren into the monastery, as Christ does with his church through his legates (146, 147). It may be said that the Abbot is the Superior to his body of people as Christ is to his mystical body.

The Abbot is the rule of Prayer within the monastery insofar as he unites the brothers in their common communication with the divine, which was prepared for in their formation. This is the Abbot as the spiritual father, where he most explicitly reflects his synonymity with Christ. One confides their Saunders 3 interior sins to Christ through his delegates: the same is true for the brethren who tell him “any evil thoughts that come to the heart, or evil deeds done by him in secret” for their guidance (118). Like Christ, the Abbot has a primacy of place during the Psalms’ recitations (112). He regulates the choice readings of certain days within the Office: “let there be three canticles from the Prophets, selected by the Abbot” (112). He is given the right to announce the Psalm synonymous with the Benedictines: “let the abbot intone the hymn Te Deum laudamus” (112). Perhaps most explicitly, the Abbot really proves his namesake and Christ-emulative nature by his ability to excommunicate brethren, as communion with the order is absolutely necessary for the formation and prayer necessary to meet Christ in this vocation. Bluntly, the Abbot is the gate-keeper for Benedictine unity with Christ. For those inside, he is the spiritual father of communion—he is the unitive principle, as is Christ.

Superior—the title of the Benedictine Abbot—is explicitly synonymous with that role and authority which stems from Christ alone. Christ is the rule of the monastery, and insofar as the Abbot is his delegate, he acts quasi in persona Christi. In response to whether or not the Abbot’s actions reflect his name, it could not be more evident from the aforementioned triplets of fatherhood and unity which apply both to the Superior and Christ that should the Abbot fulfill these roles, he is emulative of Christ’s own nature as father and unifying person. In remembering his title of Superior, the Abbot will become worthy of his Christ-like role.

Footnotes

1. The Foundations of Western Monasticism, ed. William Fahey (Charlotte: Saint Benedict Press, 2013).