Folia Canonica 5. (2002)

STUDIES - W. Becket Soule: Hermits in Current Eastern Catholic Legislation; CCEO cc. 481-485

HERMITS IN CURRENT EASTERN CATHOLIC LEGISLATION

153

solitary life. After becoming a hermit, he was not able to leave his dwelling without the permission of the bishop, and then only for a serious reason.15

In the fourteenth century, a form of life arose known as idiorrhythmia (“self ordered”), which is still extant among some non-Catholic Eastern Churches, in spite of repeated condemnation by their synods, hierarchs and ecclesiastical writers. This organization involved small communities of quasi-independent “families,” who live in private quarters and gather to celebrate the liturgy in a common monastic church. Three times a year (Christmas, Easter, and the feast of the patron of the monastery) they took a common meal together. “But in their private quarters the idiorrhythmic monks eat meat, except on days designated by the Church, and speak and act as they wish.”16 Under this system the monks may singly or collectively own, buy, and bequeath property; each monk receives fuel, wine, food, and some money. The potential for abuse is quite clear.

The eremitical life within the Catholic Eastern Churches was affirmed by the Synod of Lebanon (Maronite - 1736), which promulgated several nonus for its practice, and required a period of previous training in a monastic community.17 After this Synod, several constitutions were approved which speak of the eremitical life, such as the monks of Saint Elias18 and the Constitutions of the Soarite monks (Melkite, 1735).19 The monastic rule, or constitutions, of the monastery of

15 “Those who desire to withdraw into hermitages, either in cities or in villages, and to take heed to themselves in solitude, must first enter a monastery and be trained in the reclusive life; and for three years submit themselves in fear of God to the superior of the house and show obedience in all things as is fitting; and thus professing their intention for such a life, and that they embrace it of their own will with all their heart, they must be approved by the local bishop; thereupon they must abide one more year outside the hermitage, in order that their purpose may become yet clearer: for then they shall provide proof that they are not in pursuit of vain glory, but seek this solitude for the true good itself. After the completion of this year, if they persist in this same intention, they shall be shut up in reclusion, and shall no longer be able to leave their abode when they desire, unless they be summoned by some matter of common advantage and benefit or other necessity threatening death, and then only with the blessing of the local bishop. Those who endeavor to leave their abodes without the aforementioned excuses shall, in the first instance, be confined against their will to the said hermitage, and thereafter shall be cured through fasting and other austerities; for they are to know, as it is written, that No man who puts a hand to the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” Council in Trullo, c. 41. Eng. tr. M. Featherstone in The Council in Trullo Revisisted (Kanonika 6), Rome, 1995, 121-123.

16 P. DE Meester, De monachico statu iuxta disciplinam byzantinam. (Fonti, series II, fasc. 10), Rome, 1942, 78-79.

17 Pars IV, c. 2, 21, XX, found in Disciplina Antiochena - Maroniti. I. lus Particulare Maronitarum (Fonti, series I, fasc. 12), Rome, 1933, 513 n. 621.

18II. c. 13.

19II. 31. De eremitis et inclusis, in G. D. MANSI (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Paris, 1900-1927, vol. 46, 1277.