• Header 1
  • Header 2
  • Header 3

Cap. LX

[Ms P, fol. 148vPaulus Diaconus
Ps.-Basil: Ms K1, fol. 163r; Ms E1, fol. 166v; Ms. E2, fol. 251r]

Ch. 60

Translated by: Matthew Mattingly

1Si quis de ordine sacerdotum in monasterio se suscipi rogaverit, non quidem ei citius assentiatur, 2tamen si perstiterit omnino in hac supplicatione, sciat, se omnem regulae disciplinam servaturum, 3nec aliquid ei relaxabitur, ut sit, sicut scriptum est: Amice, ad quod venisti? [Mt 26:50]

1If anyone from the order of priests asks to be received into the monastery, indeed may it not be quickly granted to him. 2Nevertheless, if he is altogether persistent in this request, let him know that he will have to keep the entire discipline of the Rule, 3nor will anything be relaxed for him. Thus it may be as written: Friend, for what have you come? [Mt 26:50]

Adhuc S. Benedictus ordinem servat in eo quod prius dixit, qualiter laici majoris aetatis seu etiam minoris aetatis suscipiantur [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 58-59], et nunc etiam exponit, qualiter sacerdotes suscipiantur.

St. Benedict still maintains the arrangement he spoke of earlier concerning how adult laymen, or even minors, are to be received [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 58-59], and now he explains likewise how priests are to be received.

 Sacerdotis nomen ad episcopum seu presbyterum attinet atque diaconem, sicut ipse inferius dicit.

The designation priest applies both to bishops and to presbyters, as well as to deacons, just as [St. Benedict] himself says below.

In hoc, quod nunc dicit non citius, manifestat, quid sit, quod superius dixit de laicis: non facilis. [Regula Benedicti, c 58.1]

Because he says not quickly in this present passage, it is evident that this is parallel with what he said above concerning laymen: not easily. [Regula Benedicti, c 58.1]

Tamen si omnino perstiterit in hac petitione, assentiatur ei.

Nevertheless, if he is altogether persistent in this request, let it be granted to him.

H. e. quod superius dixit de laicis: ergo si veniens perseveraverit pulsans et illatas sibi injurias et difficultatem ingressus post quatuor aut quinque dies visus fuerit patienter portare et persistere petitioni suae, annuatur ei ingressus. [Regula Benedicti, c. 58.3-4]

This is what he said above concerning laymen: Therefore, if someone having come should persevere, knocking on the door and bearing the insults heaped upon him and the difficulty of entry, then after four or five days if he appears to bear this patiently and to persist in his petition, let him be allowed to enter. [Regula Benedicti, c. 58.3-4]

Et in hoc loco, in quo subsequitur dicens: 2sciat se omnem regulae disciplinam servaturum, 3nec aliquid ei relaxabitur, intelligitur, quia per omnes gradus debet probari veluti laicus, etiam plus quam laicus; nam tres sunt gradus, quibus probari debent novitii, i. e. unus ad portam monasterii per quatuor aut quinque dies; deinde secundus in hospitio paucis diebus, h. e. duobus mensibus; tertius est in cella novitiorum per decem menses.

In the passage which follows where he says, 2let him know that he will have to keep the entire discipline of the Rule, 3nor will anything be relaxed for him, it is understood that [the priest] is to be tested through every degree, just as a layman—even more than a layman. For there are three degrees by which novices must be tested: first, at the gate of the monastery for four or five days, then, secondly, in the guest house for a few days (i.e., for two months), and, thirdly, in the novitiate for ten months.

Sciendum est enim, quia sunt, qui intelligunt in hoc loco, ubi dicit sciat, se omnem regulae disciplinam observaturum, nec aliquid ei relaxabitur, non attinere disciplinam ad flagellum, quia multis modis dicitur disciplina, sed ad observationem [page 553] vitae.

Now bear in mind that there are those who understand in the passage where [St. Benedict] says, let him know that he will have to keep the entire discipline of the Rule, nor will anything be relaxed for him, that here discipline does not refer to the whip—for discipline is defined in many ways—but rather to the observance [page 553] of the life.

Nam disciplina potest dici de grammatica, de rhetorica, de dialectica etc. et de ceteris aliis artibus, eo quod disciplina dicitur, quia discitur plena. [Cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae I, c. 1-2

For [the term] discipline can be applied to grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, etc., and to certain other arts, because discipline refers to that which is taught in full. [Cf. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae I, c. 1-2]

Deinde sunt alii, qui intelligunt etiam de flagello dixisse S. Benedictum, quia quantum major est gradu, tantum majus est ejus peccatum, et idcirco major debet esse disciplina.

Then there are others who understand that St. Benedict, in addition, was speaking about the whip: for the higher one’s rank, the greater his sin, and for that reason his discipline must also be greater.

Et illi respondent: non debet frater presbyter flagellari, quia canones dicunt, non presbyterum flagellari, sed per XLIV ei testes testificari, sicut dicit S. Silvester in suis decretis [cf. Decreta Sancti Patris Silvestri, PL 130, col. 609D] ne haereticis contra sanctos religiosos presbyteros daretur facultas aut occasio surgendi adversus presbyterum.'

Now the former will respond: An ordained brother should not be whipped, for the canons say that a priest is not to be beaten unless forty-four witnesses have testified against him, as St. Sylvester says in his decrees [cf. Decreta Sancti Patris Silvestri], in order that heretics not be given the means of acting against holy and religious priests, nor receive an occasion for rising up against one.

At modo quia omnes catholici sumus et sacerdotes reperiuntur insipidi, ideo necesse est, ut dimittamus hoc, quod Silvester dixit, et teneamus hoc quod evangelium dicit: In ore duorum et trium testium stet omne verbum. [Mt 18:3]

But since we ourselves are all catholic, and because priests are known to be found insipid, for these reasons it is necessary that we set aside what Sylvester said and [instead] maintain what the Gospel says: Every word holds true in the mouth of two or three witnesses [Mt 18:3].

Ita et de flagello intelligendum est; propter viles presbyteros debet flagellum in presbyteris commoveri, et quia ita est, iste sensus utrimque tenendus est, i. e. boni et honesti non flagellentur, viles et mali flagellentur. Quia si tenuerimus ita, ut nunquam flagellentur mali, malis presbyteris non erit terror nec disciplina. Si autem tenuerimus, ut semper flagellentur, tunc boni non frangentur, h. e. semper ministerium suum adimplere studebunt.

It is to be understood in the same way concerning the whip. Because there are worthless priests, priests must be subject to the whip, and because this is so, such a view must hold true for both sides—i.e., good and honest priests are not to be whipped, worthless and wicked ones are. For if we were to maintain that wicked priests are never to be whipped, there would be no fear or discipline for them. But if we hold that they should always be whipped, it will not be the good ones who are broken, for they are already ever eager to fulfill their ministry.

Et hoc sciendum est, quia illi, qui dicunt: 'flagellandi sunt presbyteri,' sunt simplices et zelantes legem Dei; illi autem qui dicunt, non esse flagellandos, sunt acutiores et perspicaciores.

It should also be kept in mind that those who say, 'priests ought to be whipped,' are simple-minded and zealous for the law of God, whereas those who say 'they should not be whipped,' are sharper and more perceptive.

Nam sciendum est, quia illi, qui dicunt, ad observationem vitae attinere hoc, quod superius diximus, dicunt, adjuvari illos illud testimonium,1 quod subjungitur: Amice, ad quod venisti? [Mt 26:50]- subaudiendum est: 'fac' et 'adimple.'

Bear in mind also that those who say that this [precept] pertains only to the observance of the life, as we have mentioned above, claim they are supported by that testimony which follows: Friend, for what have you come? [Mt 26:50]—and to this they would add: ‘do’ and ‘complete.’1

De susceptione presbyterorum intelligendum est, quia plus debet presbyter probari quam laicus, praeter si talis fuerit, ut religiosus videatur, non ita tunc debet probari, sicuti laicus, eo quod majorem religionem habeat, quam laicus, et hoc intelligitur in eo loco, ubi dicit: [page 554] 4liceat ei missas tenere et benedicere, si talis fuerit ejus vita.

When it comes to the reception of priests, it must be understood that a priest is to be tested more than a layman, except for the case that he appears religious, then he ought not to be tested in the same way as a layman because he has more religion than a layman, and this is understood in the current passage where [St. Benedict] says: [page 554] 4It is permitted to him to say Mass and to impart blessings, if his life [is worthy] of such things.

Si ergo propter vitam promovendus est, cur non propter vitam similiter et laicus? Non; quia presbyter meliorem semper ducere debet vitam, quam laicus.

If, therefore, a priest is to be promoted on account of his life, why not likewise a layman on account of his life? By no means. For a priest should always lead a better life than a layman.

Nunc autem, quia S. Benedictus de sacerdotibus dicit, dicendum est nobis, quare sacerdos aut presbyter vel diaconus dicatur.

But now since St. Benedict speaks about priests [sacerdotibus], we must address the reason why a priest [sacerdos] is called either a presbyter or a deacon.

Dicit enim Isidorus in libro ethymologiarum ita: Sacerdos autem nomen habet [omitted in ed. Mittermüller, added from ed. Lindsay:] conpositum ex Graeco et Latino, quasi sacrum dans; sicut enim rex a regnando, ita sacerdos a sacrificando vocatus est. Consecrat enim et sanctificat.

For Isidore thus says in Etymologies: The name ‘priest’ [sacerdos] is composed from the Greek and Latin words for offering the sacrifice at the Mass [sacrum dans]. Just as a king is called rex from the act of reigning [regando], so too is a priest called sacerdos from the act of making sacrifice [sacrificando], for he both consecrates and sanctifies.

Sacerdotes autem gentilium flamines dicebantur. Hi in capite habebant pilleum, in quo erat brevis virga desuper habens lanae aliquid. Quod cum per aestum ferre non possent, filo tantum capita religare coeerunt. Nam nudis penitus eos capitibus concedere nefas erat. Unde a filo, quod utebantur, flamines dicti sunt, quasi filamines. Verum festis diebus filo deposito pilleum inponebant, pro sacerdotii eminentia.

The flamines gentilium [a pagan order of priests in ancient Rome] were also called priests. These wore a biretta on their head on which there was a short staff on top covered with wool. Because they were not able to wear this throughout the summer, they began to cover their heads with only a single thread, for it was considered an insult for them to go about with a completely bare head. Whereby, from the single thread [filo] that was used, they are called flamines, similar to ‘spinners’ [filamines]. But on feast days, having set aside the thread, they put on the biretta, for the sake of the eminence of the priesthood.

Presbyter Graece, Latine senior interpretatur, non pro aetate, vel decrepita senectute; sed propter honorem et dignitatem, quam acceperunt, presbyteri nominantur.

Likewise, the Greek presbyter, interpreted in Latin as ‘elder’, is so called, not on account of his age or infirmity, but because of the honor and dignity which he has received.

Ideo autem et presbyteri sacerdotes vocantur, quia sacrum dant, sicut episcopi, qui licet sint sacerdotes, tamen pontificatus apicem non habent; quia nec chrismate frontem signant, nec Paracletum Spiritum dant, quod solis deberi episcopis lectio Actuum aspostolorum demonstrat. Unde et apud veteres idem episcopi et presbyteri fuerunt, quis illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc aetatis. Levitae ex nomine auctoris vocati.

For that reason presbyters are also called priests [sacerdotes], because just as the bishops they offer the sacrifice [sacrum dant], but although they are priests, nevertheless, they do not have the pontifical rank, for they do not anoint with chrism nor bestow the Spirit Paraclete, which is given to the bishops alone as a reading of the Acts of Apostles demonstrates. Wherefore, among the ancients, bishops and priests were the same man, who had the former name on account of his merit, the latter on account of age.

De Levi enim levitae exorti sunt, a quibus in templo Dei mystici sacramenti ministeria expebantur. Hi Graece diacones, Latine miniteri dicuntur, quia sicut in sacerdote consecratio, ita in diacono ministerii] dispensatio habetur. [Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae VII, c. 12.17-22]

The Levites are so called because of their originator, for from Levi did the Levites arise, by whom are fulfilled the ministries of the mystical rite in the temple of God. These are called deacons [diacones] in Greek, ministers [ministeri] in Latin, for just as the right to consecrate is held by the priesthood, in the same way is the right to dispense the various ministries held by the diaconate. [Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae VII, c.12.17-22]

Cleros et clericos [omitted in ed. Mittermüller, added from ed. Lindsay:] hinc appellatos, quia Matthias sorte electus est, quem primum per Apostolos legimus ordinatum. Κληρος enim Graece sors vel hereditas dicitur. Propterea ergo dicti clerici, quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia Domini partem habent. Generaliter autem clerii nuncupantur omnes qui in ecclesia Christi deserviunt, quorum gradus et nomina haec sunt: ostiarius, psamista, lector, exorcista, acolythus, subdiaconus, diaconus] presbyter, episcopus. [Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae VII, c. 12.1-2]

Clerics and the clergy are so called because Matthias was chosen by lot, which we read to have been first established by the apostles, for kleros in Greek means lot or inheritance. Therefore, for that reason, they are called clerics because it is by lot that they belong to the Lord or have a share in the Lord. But generally speaking, all are called clerics because they serve Christ in the Church, the degrees of which are these: porter, cantor, lector, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, priest, and bishop. [Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae VII, c. 12.1-3]

Sequitur: 3ut sit, sicut scriptum est: Amice, ad quod venisti? [Mt 26:50]

The Rule continues: 3Thus it may be as written: Friend, for what have you come? [Mt 26:50]

Istud, quod hic dicit B. Benedictus, Dominus tempore traditionis suae Judae dixit. Sed sunt, qui istum locum in evangelio varie intelligunt.

The passage which Blessed Benedict quotes here is that which the Lord said to Judas at the time of his betrayal. There are those, however, who understand this Gospel passage in various ways.

Alii dicunt, quia dolentis vox est, quasi dolenter dixisset Dominus: Amice, ad quod venisti? i.e. ad quod scelus delapsus es! Venisti discipulus tradere magistrum, servus Dominum, creatura creatorem, et cum esses apostolus, effectus es traditor.

Some say that it reflects the voice of one who is grieving, as if with grief the Lord had said, Friend, for what have you come?—that is, into what crime have you fallen! You, a disciple, have come to hand over his master, a slave his Lord, a creature his Creator, and since you were an apostle, you are now rendered a traitor.

Sunt iterum alii, qui intelligunt: Amice, ad quod venisti, subaudiendum est: fac, i. e. non venisti osculum pacis dare, sed tradere, quasi diceret: ad quod venisti, fac, i. e. trade et imple, quod spopondisti. Et secundum hunc sensum S. Benedictus in hoc loco illud intellexit: Amice, ad quod venisti, fac, i. e. non venisti imperare, sed imperari, servire, non serviri, subesse, non praeesse.

Again, there are others who understand that to Friend, for what have you come? the imperative should be added, ‘do this’—that is, ‘you have not come to give the kiss of peace, but to betray.’ It is as if he were saying, ‘Do (i.e., hand me over) and complete what you have pledged.’ According to this sense, the passage in St. Benedict should be read, Friend, do that for which you have come?—i.e., you have not come to rule but to be ruled, not to be served but to serve, not to be in charge but to submit.

Sequitur: 4Concedatur tamen ei post abbatem stare et benedicere aut missas tenere, si tamen jusserit abbas. 5Sin alias, nullatenus aliqua praesumat sciens, se disciplinae regulari subditum, et magis humilitatis exempla omnibus det.

The Rule continues: 4Nevertheless, let it be granted to him to stand behind the abbot, to impart blessings, or to say Mass, but only if the abbot should bid him. 5Otherwise, he must not presume to be an exception, knowing that he is subject to the discipline of the Rule, and should rather give an example to all of his humility.

Quod vero dicit concedatur ei post abbatem stare et benedicere et missas tenere, subaudiendum est: si ejus vita talis fuerit digna, ac si diceret: 'si dignus est,' i. e. si talis fuerit ejus vita, ut omnibus praeferatur, 'stet post abbatem, et si non dignus, non stet, sed sive in medio, sive in ultimo secundum quod dignus fuerit, ibi stet.'

Because St. Benedict says, let it be granted to him to stand behind the abbot, to impart blessings, or to say Mass, we ought to add: if his life is worthy of such things. And then he would say, ‘if he is worthy’—that is, if his life is of such a kind that he is to be preferred before all others—‘let him stand behind the abbot, but if he is not worthy then let him not stand there, but either in the middle or at the end according to what he deserves.’

Benedicere intelligendum est: cibum aut potum in refectorio, aut certe lectori [page 555] in ecclesia.

The privilege of imparting blessings should be understood as referring either to food or drink in the refectory, or at least to the reader [page 555] in church.

Similiter et quod dicit missas tenere, intelligendum est, sicut diximus, de loco, h. e. si dignus fuerit, ut missam cantet, cantet; si autem non dignus fuerit cantare, non cantet, h. e. si fecit adulterium, i. e. cum uxore alterius aut cum femina sacrata, aut homicidium, aut certe talia, pro quibus canones illum prohibent missam cantare.

Likewise, when he says, to say Mass, it is to be understood as we have said elsewhere with reference to another passage, i.e., if he is worthy of celebrating Mass, let him celebrate it, but if he is not worthy of celebrating it, then he should not do so—that is, if he commits adultery (i.e., with the wife of another or with a consecrated woman), or homicide, or indeed other such things for which the canons prohibit him from celebrating Mass.

Quia, si Paulus apostolus de illis dicit, qui mortali peccato tenentur, non communicare,2 - quanto minus, missas cantare [non] debent. Ait enim: Si quis indigne manducaverit corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini et reliq. [cf. Cor 11:27-28]

For if the Apostle Paul, speaking about these matters, says that someone who is bound by mortal sin should not receive communion, how much more then should he not celebrate Mass. For Paul says, If anyone unworthy should eat the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, he will be held accountable for the body and blood of the Lord, etc. [cf. 1 Cor 11:27-28]

In hoc vero quod superius dixit: sciat, se omnem regulae disciplinam servaturum, nec aliquid ei relaxabitur, et nunc dicit: 5sciens, se disciplinae regulari subditum, et magis humilitatis exemplum omnibus det, datur intelligi, ut tam in admonitione secreta quam in publica correptione aut excommunicatione aut nimiis jejuniis vel flagello aut oratione seu expulsione, sicut ille laicus, qui conversus est in monasterium, ita tamen si talis fuerit, ut flagellari dignus sit, flagelletur. Si vero aut senex aut sapiens aut talis voluntatis durae, ut pro flagello sit postmodum pejor, non debet flagellari, sicut jam de monachis diximus, quia medicina debet adhiberi, non vulnus, quia, sive monachus sive presbyter, medicari debet, non vulnerari.

Because St. Benedict said above, let him know that he will have to keep the entire discipline of the Rule, nor will anything be relaxed for him, and now he says, 5knowing that he is subject to the discipline of the Rule, and should rather give an example to all of his humility, in this passage we should understand that both in private admonishment and in public correction, whether this involves excommunication, lengthy fasts, whipping, prayer, or expulsion, it should be just as it is for the layman who has converted to the monastic life: if he is of such a kind that he deserves to be whipped, then he should be whipped; but if he be an old man, or wise, or has such a stubborn will that he would be worse afterwards on account of the whipping, then he should not be whipped, just as we have already said concerning monks who ought to receive medicine rather than a wound, because whether he is a monk or a priest he should be cared for, not afflicted.

Sciendum est enim, quia ubi dicit post abbatem stare, ideo dicit, quia tunc erant pauci sacerdotes et melioris vitae quam nunc sint, et ideo dicit post abbatem stare. Sed nunc de omnibus intelligendum est, quia non omnes sacerdotes boni sunt et hoc manifestatur, ubi dicit: si jusserit abbas.

Bear in mind that when he states the priest is to stand behind the abbot, this is said because at that time there were few priests—and all leading better lives—than there are today, and for that reason St. Benedict says that he is to stand behind the abbot. But now it is understood by everyone that not all priests are good, and this is evident when he says, if the abbot should bid him.

In eo quod dicit si jusserit abbas, manifestatur, quia per probationem vitae debet jubere.

Here, because he says, if the abbot should bid him, it is clear that he ought to bid him by testing his way of life.

Et quomodo probatur vita sacerdotis? Potest per famam sanctitatis aut malitiae, quam foris habuit, sive etiam, quia non dicit regula, ut statim, ex quo intrat, stet post abbatem, ubi datur intelligi, quia prius et postquam intraverit, etiam cognosci debet ejus vita.

And how ought the life of a priest be tested? It can by the reputation for sanctity or disrepute which he has outside the monastery. Further, the Rule does not say that he is to stand behind the abbot immediately from the moment he enters, since it is clear that both before and after he enters, his way of life ought to be familiar.

Quod vero vitae aestimatio debet [page 556] esse in sacerdote manifestatur etiam in hoc, cum S. Benedictus non de uno dicit, sed de omnibus, quid agendum sit.

Because there ought to be an appraisal [page 556] of the priest’s way of life, it is evident even in this case what ought to be done, for St. Benedict is not speaking about one priest but about all.

Si tres sunt sacerdotes aut plus, quomodo possunt poni post abbatem, quia si unus fuerit, alter [vero] non potest esse? Ac per hoc, cum ita sit, vita prius cognoscatur, et tunc secundum meritum vitae concedatur ei post abbatem stare vel missas tenere et benedicere, si tamen jusserit ei abbas.

If there are three priests or more, how can they [all] be placed behind the abbot? For if one is there then the others cannot be. Thus, because this is the case, his way of life must first be known, and then it will be granted to him, according to the merit of his life, to stand behind the abbot, to say Mass, or to impart blessings, so long as the abbot bids him.

Et hoc sciendum est, quia in eo quod dicit concedatur ei stare post abbatem, et non dicit: 'secundus vel tertius vel quartus vel plus,' datur intelligi, etiamsi in decimo loco steterit post abbatem cognoscitur stare; et ideo quia ita est, vita necesse est ut inspiciatur, ut si dignus est, sit secundus aut tertius aut quartus aut juxta vitae suae meritum.

Bear in mind also that in this passage, because he says, let it be granted to him to stand behind the abbot, and does not say, ‘in the second, third, fourth place or more,’ it is clear that even if he should stand in the tenth place, he would be recognized to stand behind the abbot. On that account, because this is the case, it is necessary that his way of life be inspected, so that if he is found worthy, he might be second, or third, or fourth, according to what his life deserves.

Sequitur: 6Si forte ordinationis aut alicujus rei causa fuerit in monasterio, 7illum locum attendat, quando ingressus est in monasterium, non illum, qui ei pro reverentia sacerdotii concessus est. 8Clericorum autem si quis eodem desiderio monasterio sociari voluerit, loco mediocri collocetur, 9et ipse tamen si promittit de observatione regulae vel propria stabilitate.

The Rule continues: 6If by chance there should be an occasion for making an appointment or some other business in the monastery, 7let him maintain the place that corresponds to when he entered the monastery, not that which is conceded to him out of respect for his priesthood. 8But if any clerics likewise wish to join the monastery, let them be ranked in the middle, 9but, notwithstanding, only if they promise observance of the Rule and their stability.

Quod vero dicit: Si forte ordinationis aut alicujus rei causa fuerit in monasterio, illum locum attendat, quem habuit, quando ingressus est in monasterium, non illum, qui ei pro reverentia sacerdotii concessus est - ac si diceret: si forte fuerit dignus, ut decanus aut praepositus3 aut consiliator aut certe alicujus utilitatis, cum tali humilitate et subjectione debet abbati consilium dare aut certe agere hoc, quod illi injunctum est, cum quali humilitate et reverentia seu subjectione locutus fuerat, quando monasterium ingressus est.

Indeed, because he says, if by chance there should be an occasion for making an appointment or some other business in the monastery, let him maintain the place that corresponds to when he entered the monastery, not that which is conceded to him out of respect for his priesthood—it is as if he were saying: if by chance he is worthy to become dean, or prior, or a counselor, either he should give useful council to the abbot, with all humility and subjection, or at least do that which he has been enjoined with the same humility and reverence or subjection that he had shown when he first entered the monastery.

Quod enim dicit: Clericorum autem si quis eodem desiderio monasterio se sociare voluerit, loco mediocri collocetur - ac si diceret: si mediocrem ejus vitam cognoverint; nam si talis fuerit, ut etiam juxta abbatem stet aut debet collocari, collocetur. Similiter, si talis fuerit, ut in ultimo stet, sicut diximus de sacerdotibus, ita agendum est.

For because he says, but if any clerics likewise wish to join the monastery, let them be ranked in the middle—it is as if he were saying: if they are familiar with his mediocre life; for if it should be the case that he ought to stand or be placed next to the abbot, then let him be placed there. Likewise, if it happens that he ought to stand in the last place, just as we said concerning priests, then may it be so.

Notandum est, quia in clericorum nomine comprehenditur diaconus [page 557].

Make note that a deacon is included under the name of clerics. [page 557]

Hoc tamen sciendum est, quia non satis claret, utrum dicit, pulsari ita sacerdotes, sicut laicos, eo quod capitulum divisit de clericis et sacerdotibus et laicis.

Nevertheless, be mindful that it is not sufficiently clear whether he says the priests are to be struck in the same way as the laymen, because he has divided the chapters concerning the priests, the clerics, and the laity.

Et quia dicit, omnem disciplinam regularem scire eis servaturum, intelligitur, quia omnis disciplina est regularis, etiam illa pulsatio laicalis.

And because he says that they should know they will have to keep the full discipline of the Rule, it must be understood that all discipline is of the Rule, even the beating of laymen.

De hoc vero quod superius diximus, flagellari presbyterum, si necessitas coegerit, notandum est, quia illi, qui dicunt, flagellari debere ipsos presbyteros, assumunt testimonium hoc, quod propheta dicit: Qualis populus, talis et sacerdos, [Os 4:9] ac per hoc, si talis fuerit sacerdos, qualis populus, tunc sicut laicus probandus inprimis, deinde ita excommunicandus, ita etiam flagellandus.

Concerning this, since we have already stated that a priest is to be whipped if necessity demands it, make note that those who say the priests themselves are obliged to be whipped, accept this testimony which the prophet speaks: Such as the people, so also the priest, [Os 4:9] and because of this, if a priest is just as the people, then he especially ought to be tested in the same way as a layman, excommunicated in the same way, and even whipped in the same way.

Sed videamus, quod B. papa Gregorius dicat de hoc quod dicitur: Talis populus, qualis et sacerdos. Dicit enim in libro pastorali cap. XVIII hoc modo:4 Qua autem mente animarum praesul honore pastorali inter caeteros utitur, si in terrenis negotiis, quae reprehendere in aliis debuit, et ipse versatur? Quod videlicet ex ira justae retributionis per prophetam Dominus minatur dicens: Et erit sicut populus, sic sacerdos [Os 4:9].

But let us see what blessed pope Gregory says about this statement, Such as the people, so also the priest. For he says in the eighteenth chapter of his book, Pastoral Rule: With what conscience does the director of souls make use of his pastoral honor among other men, when he himself is embroiled in the worldly business which he ought to denounce in others? Clearly this is what the Lord threatened, in the wrath of just retribution, when he said through the prophet, just as the people will be, so also the priest [Os 4:9].

Sacerdos quippe est ut populus, quando agit ea is, qui spiritali officio fungitur, quae illi nimirum faciunt, qui adhuc de studiis carnalibus judicantur.  [Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis II, c. 7, SC 382, p. 222]

Clearly the priest is just as the people when we find that the one who functions in a spiritual office does those very things which the people most certainly do, and when the priest must still be judged concerning his carnal inclinations. [Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis II, c. 7]

Et hoc sciendum est, quia cum canit quis missam, si vult orare pro paganis et haereticis et schismaticis, ut convertantur, potest, et ideo unusquisque sacerdos sive sit canonicus sive etiam monachus, quia missam cum canit, pro omnibus malis, ut convertantur, potest et debet rogare.

Know also that whenever anyone says Mass, if he wishes to pray for the conversion of pagans, heretics, and schismatics, he is allowed to do so. On that account, each priest, whether he be canon or monk, because he has the ability to pray for the conversion of all wicked men when he says Mass, he is obliged to do so.

1. illo testimonio (?). (Mittermüller).
2. Anacoluthon. (Mittermüller).
3. praepositus fiat. Cod. Divion. ex Marten. (Mittermüller).
4. se (?). (Mittermüller).

1. i.e., ‘Friend, do and complete that for which you have come.’

Copyright © 2014 The Hildemar Project
Editor Login Page