On examining these definitions one things is clear: none of them clearly defines those with whom Basil is dealing as against ‘ordinary Christians’, as the word ‘monk’ does today. Certain texts imply a boundary, but the main boundary, as in Longer Rule 32 on the parents of brothers, is between those who live ‘kata theon’, who are devout, and the worldly. In the Asceticon, composed over two or three decades, we can see various situations and a gradual development of institutions and hardening of boundaries, but Basil’s ascetic teaching, which was also given in all its rigour in Homilies addressed to wider audiences, was addressed to all Christians. It was only in the context of later developments that the Asceticon came to be seen as a purely monastic document.
Augustine Holmes OSB. A Life Pleasing to God. The Spirituality of the Rules of St Basil. London, DLT, 2000.54
December 23, 2008 at 1:59 pm
[...] Monastic and ordinary. [...]
December 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm
[...] Monastic and ordinary. [...]
December 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“Longer Rule 32 on the parents of brothers, is between those who live ‘kata theon’, who are devout, and the worldly.”
What do the distinctions “devout” and “worldy” signify, do you think? Does Basil define these?
December 23, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Nathan,
Father Holmes notes various terms that Basil uses: piety (although in a stronger sense than today), godly, life according to the way of God, ascesis as in “athletes of the Commandments of Christ” and “the ascesis of being well-pleasing to God according to the Gospel of Christ”, a life pleasing to God, a life with one aim, namely, the glory of God, and a life of brotherhood. (p.53)
When I read this I was reminded of something that I heard Metropolitan Jonah say recently. He said that if one is to distinguish between people then it is not so much between those in the Church and those outside of it, as between those living according to the passions (understood in the patristic sense of disordered desires) and those struggling against the passions, which is what ascesis is all about. I suspect that St Basil would agree.
For more on the continuity between monasticism and other Christian life, see here.
December 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Holmes’s observation is a very interesting one. I’d really like to study St Basil’s ‘Ascetical Works’ sometime.
By the way, at my own blog I’ve written a related post, called ‘Secular and Monastic Cross-fertilisation’.
December 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Aaron,
Yes, and I found your post interesting as well. The more I read of St Basil – which is, regrettably, not that much – the more I think that I’d like to explore him further. He somehow seems able to avoid false antitheses such as ecclesial life and monastic withdrawal, intellectual life and anti-intellectualism, radicality and tradition, seeking peace and yet insisting on the integrity of dogma. He is someone whom I really want to come back to in greater depth.
December 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Macrina,
Thank you for your answer. I find all of this quite fascinating and exciting.
~Nathan
December 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm
You’re welcome.
October 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm
[...] She then goes on to comment: “When I read this I was reminded of something that I heard Metropolitan Jonah say recently. He said that if one is to distinguish between people then it is not so much between those in the Church and those outside of it, as between those living according to the passions (understood in the patristic sense of disordered desires) and those struggling against the passions, which is what ascesis is all about. I suspect that St Basil would agree.” (see here) [...]