Is the injunction in the Benedictine rule “Deinde non occidere” interpreted to forbid the killing of brutes, or only humans?

I know that all Protestants consider prayer and Bible study to be important, but what about other spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, participating in an all-night vigil, practicing silence and solitude, or engaging in ascetic practices like giving up certain foods, refraining from entertainment, living simply, or voluntarily limiting material possessions, as is often seen in monastic life? For example, Jesus fasted for 40 days and often withdrew to solitary places to pray, such as when He spent the whole night in prayer on a mountain (Luke 6:12). Related to this, this question discusses the biblical basis of twelve spiritual disciplines: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3469/117426 Do Protestants believe in spiritual principles or laws that make some or all spiritual disciplines effective or beneficial? I understand that Protestants value prayer as a way to communicate with God, and Bible study as a way to receive guidance from God (while not necessarily excluding the possibility of extra-biblical communication). This clearly explains the centrality of prayer and Bible study in Protestant practice. But do Protestants also have a theological or spiritual framework that sees fasting or other ascetic practices as spiritually useful? If someone does not practice fasting, for example, are they missing out on something important? Do Protestants believe that certain spiritual disciplines—beyond prayer and Bible study—can have specific spiritual effects, such as aiding in spiritual warfare or bringing about other spiritual benefits? I recognize that Protestantism encompasses a wide range of perspectives, so I am interested in an overview of them.

Practically, how were prayer requests handled in medieval monasteries? Did only the abbot/prior review them, or did all the monks know about the prayer requests outsiders would submit to the monastery?

I was wondering why most monks aren't ordained. It seems like some monasteries are about half and half while others seem to have as few priests as necessary. This would make sense in medieval times when it wasn't possible for that many people to be highly educated but why today? Given that they are Catholic monks and probably just as educated as the priests why would they remain lay, especially in monasteries where many of the monks are priests? Is there a specific reason for this in some monasteries?

On The Patristics Project website there is [a blog post entitled "Patristic Universalism"](https://www.patristics.co/patristic-universalism/) , which provides quotes from twelve of the ancient Christian writers popularly known as the Church Fathers, regarding how they, among others, "either believed in the universal restoration of all things, or stated things with Universalist implications." The post goes into some definitions of universalism although this, I think, is best elucidated by references in the post's section "The Universalist Majority," which says: > In the work “De Asceticis,” St Basil allegedly states, “The mass of > men say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are > punished.” St Augustine concurs by allegedly saying, “There are very > many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not > believe in endless torments.” The last section of the post is titled "The Divine Liturgy," towards the end of which its author offers the following (with my own emphasis [and footnote]). > Personally, I do not identify as a Universalist, so I do not want > people to get the impression I am trying to sell it, as I am merely > presenting the objective patristic data... I have my own reasons for > disagreeing... I would probably be much more zealous in my rejection > of universalism, if it were not for the liturgy making a hypocrite out > of me. I say evil people who reject God will not be saved, yet I pray > for the salvation of those same evil people who reject God even after > they die. **I have heard that there are even monks on Mount Athos who > pray for the devil.** Is it any wonder why Fr. Sergius Bulgakov✭ > arrived at such a place? Like Moses, it is the heart of love that > persistently seeks to *change God’s mind* (so to speak) to actually > give people precisely what they *don’t* deserve (Exo 32:14). This > Mosaic prayer is constantly uttered unto God by the saints on behalf > of all humanity. The two Church Fathers who are most famous (at least in the modern era) for having been universalists, namely Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, are incidentally also the ones known for having espoused the idea that not only all humanity was or would be saved by/through Christ, but that the devil and evil spirits/entities/demons in general, as *logikoi*, i.e. rational beings, are likewise beneficiaries of this aspect of God's grace. That being as radical as it appears to be when compared to the majority of Christian tradition over the course of history, I had never before encountered the yet more radical idea of praying ***for*** the devil, presumably for his salvation(?). (I don't see what other reason there could be to do this, at least as far as the most mainstream Christian views of the devil and his role are concerned.) As far as I have read, neither Origen nor Gregory mention such an idea. In the modern era there are both children and adults who have given the question serious enough thought to ask authority figures about it, based on the commandments and doctrine of loving and praying for one's enemies, as I discovered on [Billy Graham's website](https://billygraham.org/answer/should-we-pray-for-satan-so-hell-change-his-evil-ways/) , the [Catholic Answers website](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/should-i-pray-for-the-devil) and the [Answers in Genesis website](https://answersingenesis.org/angels-and-demons/satan/feedback-should-we-pray-for-satan/) . I tried to contact the cited blogger for more information on my Question but have received no response, and my research on it turned up just one hit, from the St Andrew Greek Orthodox Church in South Bend, IN, USA. It has a website with a page entitled "Satan and Demons," written by the parish's priest, the Rev. Fr. George D. Konstantopoulos, Protopresbyter, who says: > It is said that Saint Paisios used to pray for the Devil, until one > day Saint Paisios saw him laughing in a distance from his cell and I > think ridiculing the Geronda (Elder). From that day Saint Paisios > stopped praying for the repentance of the Devil, since **he understood > that it was futile** [*emphasis in original*]. Paisios of Mt Athos was a Greek Orthodox ascetic (1924–1994) who spent a good chunk of his life on Mt Athos. This is the only other reference that I have found to a monk from that mountain praying for the devil, and it is the only place I have seen this story told about Paisios. Similarly to the conclusion arrived at by the paragraph which tells the story, the aforementioned websites pretty much roundly denounce the very thought of praying for the devil, for essentially the same reason. It seems to be across the board regardless of whether the specific Christian tradition in view is Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant, none of which is surprising. But how obscure is this idea or practice, considering that, as early as Origen (200s AD), and Gregory of Nyssa (300s AD), there were Christians who did *not* dismiss out of hand the concept that the devil would or could be saved (along with all of humanity)? Is Paisios the only Mt Athos monk who ever prayed for the devil? Are there other Christians elsewhere who have gone beyond mere inquisitiveness regarding this (see the websites above) and thought to do the same in an overt manner or an "official" capacity? ---------- ✭ Sergius/Sergey Bulgakov (1871-1944) was a Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher and economist who apparently believed in universal reconciliation or was quite hopeful about it being the destiny of humankind.

Several Lutheran church bodies, including some of the Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, have active monastic communities. However, other Lutheran churches, including ELCA and LCMS in America, have none. So, why do some Lutheran churches have monks while others don't? Is there a specific reason for this difference, or a rule prohibiting them in other Lutheran churches? If not, why don't those churches have monks?

I've been searching for some reference to the "usual" distribution of hours in terms of sleep, prayer, reading, working, etc for Western monasteries but cannot find a good reference online. I've computed a distribution based on [this website](https://christdesert.org/prayer/rule-of-st-benedict/chapter-48-the-daily-manual-labor/) but it's very sketchy. I know things vary by rule (Benedictine vs others), by date (Second Vatican Council shortened the Divine Office), local customs, etc. But any rough measure would be of help. My attempt so far for a normal day (no Sunday, no Feast, ...): - Work: 5 hrs - Reading: 2 hrs - Prayer (Mass + Divine Office): 6 hrs - Rest: 8hrs - Communal time (eating, meetings, etc): 3 hrs Is anyone aware of a more "official breakdown" of this? Or perhaps can compute a better distribution? PD: It's also true that in medieval times an hour wasn't fixed in 60 minutes but varied by the time of the year, a practice inherited from Roman times.

[Monasticism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/monasticism) (or the practice of being a monk) is practiced by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox faiths. It is not as much practiced by protestant groups. Are there any verses that support Monasticism? Or is it merely a traditional practice?

How did the Christians get the idea to create monasteries? As far as I know, monasteries, monks and nuns did not exist in the religion Jesus was born into and he did not ask, he did not even talk about founding monasteries. And then, how did the Christians get this idea? Was it adopted from the previous, Roman religion? Or maybe it was inspired from Budhism?

Has any monk or nun in Church history ever left a monastery to be married to a king or queen? St. Margaret of Hungary , according to *Short Lives of the Dominican Saints* p. 16 , almost did: >Her parents afterwards obtained a Papal dispensation in order to marry her to the King of Bohemia, but this only gave Margaret an opportunity of showing that her religious life was the result of her own free choice, for no prayers or entreaties would induce her to quit the cloister. Addressing the question of whether it is expedient to marry, Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P., writes : >There could also be other reasons why it could be expedient for him to marry, for example, if some great good of a spiritual nature would result for a multitude, for example, woman who foresees that she would convert her pagan husband who is a very powerful man, such as a king, or some other man of great power. Despite the common good being greater than an individual's good , St. Thomas Aquinas argues that an individual religious person (monk or nun) cannot be called back to the world, no matter the human good that may result (II-II q. 88 a. 11 "Whether it is possible to be dispensed from a solemn vow of continency?" arg./ad 1; Freddoso transl. PDF pp. 2395,7): > \[arg. 1:\] one reason for granting a dispensation in the case of a vow is that the vow impedes a greater good. But a vow of continence, even if it is a solemn vow, can be an obstacle to a greater good, since the common good is more godlike than is the good of a single individual. But someone’s continence can impede the good of the whole multitude, e.g., when the peace of the fatherland could be secured through a contract of marriage between persons who have vowed continence. Therefore, it seems that a dispensation can be granted in the case of a solemn vow of continence. > > Una enim ratio dispensandi in voto est si sit impeditivum melioris boni, sicut dictum est. Sed votum continentiae, etiam si sit solemne, potest esse impeditivum melioris boni, nam bonum commune est divinius quam bonum unius; potest autem per continentiam alicuius impediri bonum totius multitudinis, puta si quando per contractum matrimonii aliquarum personarum quae continentiam voverunt, posset pax patriae procurari. Ergo videtur quod in solemni voto continentiae possit dispensari. > > \[ad 1:\] The dangers associated with human things should by obviated by means of human things and not by means of divine things being turned to human use. But those who have professed the religious state are dead to the world and life for God. Hence, they are not to be called back to human life by reason of any turn of events whatsoever. > > Ad primum ergo dicendum quod periculis rerum humanarum est obviandum per res humanas, non autem per hoc quod res divinae convertantur in usum humanum. Professi autem religionem mortui sunt mundo et vivunt Deo. Unde non sunt revocandi ad vitam humanam occasione cuiuscumque eventus. My question here is sort of the converse of: "Are Catholics allowed to leave marriage in order to become a monk or nun? " Religious like Pope St. Celestine V have been recalled from their monasteries to become bishops—though the episcopal state is a more perfect state than the religious state , because "bishops are in the position of 'perfecters'" of others, which is a greater thing than those (religious) who "are in the position of being 'perfected'" (e.g., as a teacher is greater than his students or a general than his soldiers).

Pascal wrote in *Pensées* S168/L136 : >all of man's unhappiness arises from one thing alone, that he does not know how to remain at rest in a room. A man that has enough to live, if he knew how to remain by himself happily, would not go abroad or lay a siege. > >*tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre. Un homme qui a assez de bien pour vivre, s’il savait demeurer chez soi avec plaisir, n’en sortirait pas pour aller sur la mer ou au siège d’une place.* > >Ariew's transl. : "man's unhappiness arises from one thing alone: that he cannot remain quietly in his room. A man who has enough to live on would not go to sea or lay a siege, if he knew how to enjoy staying at home." I read a quotation from a saint (St. Bruno?) along these same lines. What was it?

Lately I have been very interested in the different ways that Christianity (and religion in general) has to address all the different ways that we as mere mortal humans have to get closer to God. In the world of today, so full of superficialities and consumerism, one of the purest ways to getting into contact with God is that one of rejecting all these mundanities and live a fully spiritual life as a monk. But, of course, (at least for me) it is clear that this spiritual life can be meaningful in different senses and pursuing different aspects and connections to God and His creation. I personally have been interested in this kind of life because I think that today it is one of the purest ways of living that a Human can pursue. However, I do not like complete religious isolationism forgetting thus completely the Creation itself. I feel really attracted by those monks that at the same time that they were living a monastical life were able to make scientifically relevant contributions connecting thus with God and His Creation from an epistemological point of view. And I feel that this is a truly great thing and that monasteries should become in these days more and more a place where this kind of *spiritual* work is pursued. (Of course, being ample and open-minded about which path and knowledge one considers best suited in order to accomplish the communion with God). My point is that this communion with God might be pursued by a pure development of the knowledge that God let us have as Humans made as image of Himself. Hence the intellectual works of the monks in the previous link should be considered not as a side hobby during their monastical life but a central part of this kind of life, a part that makes them (and, by extension, the rest of Humanity because of the sharing of knowledge common in science) closer to the Creator. Thus, for example, Mendel works founding genetics should be considered as truly spiritual works carried over during his spiritual retire and in connection with God. In this sense, what I see is that monasteries could evolve more towards this direction and publicising this point of view. Nowadays, we all know that spiritual vocation is at its minimum and this is emptying many monasteries that had a great impact and enormous importance in the development of science and knowledge during previous centuries. However, pushing more into this direction could attract many young scientists that do not pursue money or fame (although pure science is not giving much of this anyway) but knowledge and quiet and noiseless (in an ample metaphorical sense that includes all the mundane distractions that keep us nowadays far form the very important things on this life) places where people live in community pursuing true knowledge in different directions and helping each other in the mundane things and tasks that God asks us to do in order to survive (like making food, cleaning, etcetera). Seeing the linked list with so many scientists that were monks and funded completely new branches of many sciences makes me think that this is effectively a way of connecting with God that it is encouraged or at least respected and tolerated during a monastical life. However, it seems to be declining in the last years. I am a mathematician and I would expect that many deep discoveries could come from monasteries where monks completely devoted to mathematics and committed towards the development of their knowledge spent their days thinking about these topics. However, I do not see this very often even though many great figures of Mathematics basically ended living like monks: I am thinking here about Grothendieck or Perelman , for example. My point of view working in Academia is that the environment of Academia where *publish or perish* is the main leitmotif feeds the development of small but progressive discoveries; and do not misinterpret me: I consider that *publish or perish* is something that Academia needs in order to evaluate who is better playing its completely necessary game for society because academicians get paid for what they do in Academia and then results are expected. At the same time that I consider thus that Academia is necessary, I see that monasteries could accomplish a complementary mission where *publish or perish* is not having a meaning and where monks devoted to knowledge could spend years without having any result just thinking and getting spiritually more involved until one point where **maybe** they come with something new that could then of course be published and shared with the world. This main difference between Academia and Monastery would be the materialism expected from their developers: nothing else than spirituality is expected from the monks because they are not paid materialistically for their work but spiritually (which from my point of view is much better) and as people in Academia are materialistically paid salaries something material in the form of a *publish or perish* environment is expected from them. I really think that both approaches are necessary for our society and thus I am not really criticising them here but just describing their different mechanisms in order to draw correctly the line that separates between them. At the end of the day not everyone can be a monk and there is people who consider science as a job to get some mundane reward in exchange (which is completely okay) but there is also people in the other side of the river where material rewards are not expected but only the spiritual one, which again reminds me of Perelman's rejection of all the money and awards. Summing up, my question is basically if these ways of connecting with God are recognised inside the any Christian church (or monastic order) and encouraged by some of these Institutions or if they are seen nowadays far from the current mission of the followers of God on Earth? Being more practical, if I go to a monastery saying that I am a mathematician and that I want to be there because I feel that I want to search my connection with God via the isolated and quiet study of the Mathematics that God created, would I be suggested to not follow the monastical life (even though I do not look for anything material) and not accepted to form part of the monastical community or would I be understood and encouraged to follow the direction that my soul aims me to pursue in order to find the closest connection with God that I feel created by Him to accomplish? I hope that you can illustrate me in order to understand better the monastical life and its surroundings. Thank for any side suggestion or correction in the comments! Or if it varies between different religions or orders, which one is the closest to this epistemological point of view. I know more about catholic monastery because that is my religious background but of course I am also interested in different points of views from other confessions.

P. Lafetur, O.P., in *The Virtues and States of Life* by A. M. Henry, O.P. (1957), p. 583 says: >[…] loss of virginity make the consecration to God which follows it something different from that of virginity. This is so true that **a special congregation was to receive into the contemplative life those persons whom the sin** (not only against the sixth commandment, but especially that sin) **had touched**. And it has been correctly observed that even those persons whose disgrace had remained completely secret felt more at ease in communities of this kind than in monasteries established principally for virgins. What are these "special [religious] congregations" of non-virgins? Fr. Lafetur doesn't seem to be referring to a congregation of the sort as the [Congregation for Religious](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32737) , but to religious communities.

In the catholic doctrine, is it allowed to leave a marriage and become a monk or nun? Are there any magisterial documents that treat this topic? Edit: Are there any options e.g. for a specific application of the Pauline privilege? What about the cases like Nicholas of Flüe ?

As the title asks: What is the significance of this particular haircut (the tonsure), why is it associated with monks and what is the history behind it?

Cistercians and other catholic monks are notorious for the introduction of the advancements in technical sciences and agriculture in the Medieval ages. But I recently saw movie about Athon monks (Orthodox, not catholic) https://denpeirazei.com/ and also I am seeing Benedictine abbeys near and far from me. And all of them are adept at keeping guesthouses, doing mean agricultural works and producing food products and beverages. Usually they use almost a hypocritical mix of technologies and handwork. Actually such small-scale businesses could hardly survive without the donations. My desire is to find the monastic community that advances Artificial Intelligence, robotics and automation of jobs because precisely those advances free human beings from the oppression by each other and hence - precisely those technologies (of course, if only properly managed and put into the right socio-economic mechanisms) eradicate poverty. Hence - this is the ultimate job that the communities of work and prayer can do, in my humble opinion, this is the ultimate job. But I have not found such communities. Only advanced communities are the hospital chains managed by quasi-monastic sisters, those chains can have advanced medical research cultures indeed. Catholic universities are another story, especially Leuven in Belgium and Notre Dame in the US. But still, they are not monastic communities, even if monks are sitting in the boards of trustees and department chairs. So - what has changed that this passion for technical advancement has ceased and are there Catholic monastic movements to reignite this passion for technical innovation? *Clarification added*: It is quite possible that monks are doing research work as individual researchers and collaborate with some lay or monastic persons. My question was about communities specifically. E.g. almost sure that someone is required a community to build a robot, some is required a community (small, but still) to advance AI models or cognitive architecture. *Additional clarification added*: Some argue (e.g. in the comments) that my question is of sociological and historical nature. I.e. effectively they are trying to say (without giving explanation, sources and argumentation) that changes in monastic tradition, customs and nature are always of sociological and historical nature and that changes can not be due to the development of the spiritual practices, theological understanding and related schools of thoughts that consider monastic life in the light of theology and pastoral theology. My feeling is that my question calls for the wider deconstruction of the monastic life and the spiritual components of this destruction can be considered in this site as part of my question.

Years ago I read a quote—by St. Gregory the Great or St. Jerome, I think—on how intellectual work is physically exhausting. Who said that and in what work?

One distinction between the vast majority of Protestant denominations and those of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Church is the lack of monasteries and a monastic class. What is an overview of why Protestant denominations generally don't have monks?

A Catholic friend of mine told me of a story from the Fathers of the Desert. The story goes that one of the followers of the desert monasticism would sneak off at night seeking sin; but he would confess his sin to God each night on his return; because of this the brethren could not "see" his sin. But one night whilst this chappy went on his "rounds" and upon returning he was tempted of the Devil that his sins could not be forgiven this time, and he believed it; because of this the brethren immediately could "see" the student's sin. My question is as follows: Does anyone know of this account and where I might find a full account of this story in a book or some online resource?

On a recent trip a nice nun took a picture of my family. I noticed that the nun was wearing a wedding band on her left hand. I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that nuns are considered to be “brides of Christ”, which leads to my two-part question. Do all nuns wear these symbolic wedding bands? If not, is this practice limited to certain religious orders, or is it an individual choice?