Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/849

 RELIGIOUS

761

RELIGIOUS

for instance, soon after its appearance, was said to have been dictated or even written on tablets by an angel; hence it acquired the name of the "Angel's Rule". These rules had no binding force, except sometimes for the inhabitants of a monastery during the term of their residence. In many monasteries various rules were observed: the monastic hfe did not derive its unity from the rules.

As orders began to approach more nearly to the modern form, and new ones were established having their own special objects in addition to religious pro- fession, each institute had its own rule, which was in fact a plan of life after the spirit of the Gospel, im- posed on the religious to help them work in common for the special objects of their institute. Such a rule is identified with the institute itself, and the obliga- tion to persevere in the latter includes the obligation to observe the former. The rule takes this form among the canons regular, and more definitely in the mendicant orders. The Roman Council of 1139 recognized three rules, those of St. Benedict, St. Basil, and St. Augustine; and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) refused to recognize any re- ligious institutes which did not observe a rule ap- proved by the Holy See. Innocent III and Honorius III afterwards approved the Rule of St. Francis. Thus a new note was added to the rule, the appro- bation of the Holy See ; and the rule became a canon- ical law, governing the religious, although in the be- ginning it was only a private compilation. A new step has recently been taken: until 1901, the Holy See was content to examine the laws of new institutes without troubling much over details; but as in the progress of legislation certain clauses were repeated, and new ones introduced in their place, it was decided in 1901 to enact a more uniform type of rule for new institutes: thus the Norms of 28 June, 1901, were drawn up, to be a common mould for the formation of all new institutes with but few exceptions. Hence- forth the rules will be mainly the work of the Holy See, and all congregations will be, as regards their chief lines, organized in the same manner. The sub- stance of the rule has also been greatly changed. In the beginning it was simply a short code of asceticism with such directions as were necessary for the or- ganization of common life; and in the orders properly so called, there were added to this code the regulations required by the special object of each institute: at present asceticism and the rule of life are kept distinct, and the only things to be treated of in the rule are the points of common observance.

(2) Rules and Constitutions. — In canonical language we distinguish between rules and constitutions: history easily ex-plains this terminology. As already stated, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. Ne nimia. De rehgiosis domibus, etc. (iii, 36) confirmed by the Second Council of Lyons (1479) c. ReUgionum un., ibid, in 6 (iii, 12) had forbidden new foundations of orders. The prohibition was under- stood in this sense that no order should be con- stituted under a new rule; and the sovereign pontiffs themselves insisted on the adoption of an old rule for the institutes they approved Therefore, following the example already set in the eleventh century by St. Romuald, who adapted the Rule of St. Benedict to the eremitical life, the founders chose a rule already received in the Church adding such prescriptions as were required by the special object of their institutes. These prescriptions were called "constitutions". The term "rule" is, therefore, at present used only to denote one of the ancient rules, and more particu- larly the four great rules, each of which serves as a fundamental law to many institutes, namely (1) the Rule of St. Basil, or rather the collection of his rules divided into two classes, those expounded in detail, and those more concise; (2) the Rule of St. Benedict; (3) the Rule of St. Augustine formed with the help

of his letter 211 to nuns, his sermons 355 and 356, concerning the morals of clerics (P. L., XXXIII, 358 sqq., and XXXIX, 1568) and some additions of Fulgentius; and lastly (4) the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi, confirmed on 29 Nov., 1223, by the Con- stitution "Solet" of Honorius III.

The more recent laws, not only those which con- tain decisions on special points, but also those which apply only to particular orders or congregations, are properly called constitutions; the rule is always rec- ommended by its antiquity: where there exist both a rule and constitutions, the rule, without ha^-ing any greater force, nevertheless contains the more general and consequently more stable elements, which are also common to many religious orders or congre- gations. From this point of view, institutes are classified as follows: the more ancient orders, if not reformed, have only the rule of their founder; most orders have both rules and constitutions, and vener- ate the author of the rule as a sort of patriarch; while some orders and many congregations with simple vows have constitutions which with them take the place of a rule. The Rule of St. Basil governs most monks of the Greek Rite; the Rule of St. Benedict is the principal rule of the Western Monks; and was called simply "the Rule". It governed also some military orders, such as those of Alcdntara, and the Templars. The Rule of St. Augustine is common to the canons regular, the Hermits of St. Augustine, and many institutes whose special object required a somewhat less strict form of government: thus the Friars Preachers, the Servites, and the Religious of St. John of God have this rule besides their own special constitutions. Many congregations of hospitallers of both sexes are governed in the same manner. The Rule of St. Francis is observed by the three branches of his first order; the second order and many congregations of tertiaries also follow a rule of the same saint. The Carmelites, the Minims, the Society of Jtsus, the Passionists, and the Redemptorists all have their own constitutions only.

(3) Binding Force of the Rule. — At the present day the rules and constitutions are ecclesiastical laws, and therefore obligatory, at least in their preceptive parts: but the obligation varies. In the Rule of St. Francis, for instance, some articles bind under mortal sin, others under venial sin; that of the Carmelites binds under venial sin only: and Suarez considers (De religione, VIII, I, iii, n. 8) that with- out some special indication expressed or implied in cases of doubt we must presume a venial obliga- tion. Apparently the Rule of St. Benedict and certainly the Constitutions of the Friars Preachers and the Society of Jesus do not bind directly, except to the acceptance of the penance imposed for their infringement; nor is this spontaneous fulfilment of the penance always binding in conscience. Even then, the rule is a law, not a pure counsel : if a religious should profess himself independent of it, he would commit a grave offence against obedience; if he dis- obeys, he deserves reproof and punishment, and it rests with the superior to impose under sin the ob- servance of each point of the rule. Moreover, in the motive which leads to a violation of the rule, or in the effect of such violation, there is generally an ir- regularity which makes the act a venial sin.

(4) Collections of Rules. — In very early times, there were collections of rules; we may mention that which in the language of the period, St. Benedict of .\niane (d. 821) called the "Concordia regularum", which was republished with additions by the librarian Holstenius (d. 1661) at Rome in 1661 and in Paris in 1663. Brockie brought out a more perfect edition (Augsburg, 17.50), which is reproduced in P. L., CIII, 393-700, Thomiis of Jesus, a Carmelite, published (Antwerp, 1817) commentaries on most of the rules.