Author: an absurd monk

… all voices sound different in solitude!

speaking?

One of the things that I struggle with is the desire to be heard. Yet most of the time, as soon as I start speaking, I am extremely sorry for having said anything. And I end up kicking myself for speaking at all.

Here is some advice from Walter Hilton:

And to sum up: inasmuch as you believe you can bring profit to your fellow Christian – in particular, spiritual profit – you should say what you can, if he will listen; and in all other cases keep silent as much as you can, and in a short time you will not have much of a crowd to bother you. That is how it seems to me.

reading?

One of the major parts of the Medieval anchorite vocation was the space and the time to read. So reading as a vocation!? In a time when books were rare and few people could read, the anchorite went into their anchorhold to read. The books were controlled by their spiritual director. But the advice is simple: if in doubt, read.

So the following from Speculum Inclusorum via Hermits and anchorites in England, 1200–1550.

And so, if your taste for prayer or delight in meditation decreases, immediately seek out some edifying reading, the profit of which exceeds all estimation, since it offers a mirror of all vices and virtues, clearing distractions from the mind, attracting and enticing all virtues to the soul, and also sundering it from all vices, by a kind of assault on the reason, and by the urging of fear, as well as of love. …

And so, you recluses, by edifying reading of this kind, ‘Look to your vocation.’

sign of the cross

The carthusian Sign of the Cross: in making the Sign of the Cross, whether upon oneself or things, the thumb and the first two fingers are fully extended, and the remaining two fingers are bent upon the palm of the hand. The Sign of the Cross of the Carthusians, is made reverently, slowly, with majesty; their gesture describing a uniquely large cross, from forehead, to waist, with their hands brushing the outside of each shoulder, left to right shoulder. It is important to make it well.

Quies

… a large cross with the thumb and with the two fingers, from above the forehead down to the breast.

Ancrene Wisse

vow or promise?

So … I like to research stuff! I like to be led by fancy. I like to compare how different people or groups look at the same problem. So here is some of the research on Anglican solitaries I have done via official documents.

A single consecrated person or a solitary is a person who considers her or himself to be called by God to dedicate themselves by vow or promise and live a consecrated life without living in a community with a specific leader and rule. This autonomous vowed life is an authentic Christian vocation.

Guideline of the ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ANGLICAN RELIGIOUS LIFE IN AUSTRALIA

I am struck by the reference to “vow or promise”. The “fuller document” from the Church of England does not make that distinction. I would be interested in the difference between the two and why the above felt it needed to be expanded. I assume (in my ignorance) that the above is based on an earlier version of the one below.

There have always been some who believe that they are called by God to dedicate themselves by a vow and to live as consecrated celibates, whose primary concern is to build up the body of Christ in unity and
love, though without living a community life and a common Rule. This autonomous vowed life has been recognised in the Eastern and Western Churches from earliest times as an authentic Christian vocation. Because it is not a life lived in community according to the norms of the Religious Life, it does not come within the normal scope of the Advisory Council; but since it has some similarities to the situation of Religious living under vows, bishops and others have frequently referred cases to the Council.

A Handbook of the Religious Life, The Advisory Council for Religious Communities

The above, which was published in 2021, has a much fuller understanding. It is a vow to celibacy for the upbuilding of the body of Christ. It is a peculiar relationship between the individual and their bishop (or the bishop who receives the vow). It is interesting that it does not mention a rule of life as necessary.

Anyway, just saying!

when life moves on …

This day (liturgically) last year was a complete disaster. I think Holy Week last year was about as low as I have been.

This year has been a little different but I still feel the absence of people.

Yesterday I sat outside and read some Thomas Merton. I have not read any Merton for a long time – maybe a year or so. I used to be in love with him and the type of freedom that he proclaimed.

Well, yesterday, when I sat and read him, I was somewhat disappointed. I found him very restrictive. And, at times, very old fashioned. Maybe it is because he was Roman Catholic? Or maybe because he embraced vowed monastic life? I was struck by how his writings are rather simplistic in that all the questions are answered by obedience. Very Benedticine! There is a sense, in my present state of mind, that for him life is about surrendering your will and by that becoming your true self.

Anyway, I was struck by how life moves on and changes. The things of primary importance yesterday, are no longer at the front of the line.

abide in me?

I wanted to comment on John 15. Maybe more like asking some questions without any answers.

What does it mean to “abide” in Jesus? Is that the same as the resolution that Kierkegaard speaks about? Is it an action rather than an attitude?

I will look these up and think about them a little more.

John 15

15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. 2 He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. 3 You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. 6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. 17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Buber

The deed involves a sacrifice and a risk. The sacrifice: infinite possibility is surrendered on the altar of the form; all that but a moment ago floated playfully through one’s perspective has to be exterminated; none of it may penetrate into the work; the exclusiveness of such a confrontation demands this. The risk: the basic word can only be spoken with one’s whole being; whoever commits himself may not hold back part of himself; and the work does not permit me, as a tree or man might, to seek relaxation in the It-world; it is imperious: if I do not serve it properly, it breaks, or it breaks me.

I and Thou

I have been reading Buber’s I and Thou. I have always thought of it as a book beyond me – it is way too philosophical for me to get near it. But I am very much enjoying and finding it very upbuilding. I feel like it is the flip-side of Kierkegaard’s Single Individual – my relationship to others and to God as You.

Anyway, I thought the above quote was worth reproducing here.

for me?

Christ is no play-actor, if I may say it this soberly; neither is he a merely historical person, since as the paradox he is an extremely unhistorical person. But this is the difference between poetry and actuality: contemporaneity. The difference between poetry and history is surely this, that history is what actually happened, whereas poetry is the possible, the imagined, the poetized. But that which has actually happened (the past) is still not, except in a certain sense (namely, in contrast to poetry), the actual. The qualification that is lacking—which is the qualification of truth (as inwardness) and of all religiousness is—for you. The past is not actuality—for me. Only the contemporary is actuality for me. That with which you are living simultaneously is actuality—for you. Thus every human being is able to become contemporary only with the time in which he is living—and then with one more, with Christ’s life upon earth, for Christ’s life upon earth, the sacred history, stands alone by itself, outside history.

Practice in Christianity