P. Gorazd Cetkovský, O.Carm.
Furthermore, St. Albert opens the topic of asceticism. Let’s admit, it is a sensitive issue for us. We, people of the present, do not want to engage in self-denial, and sometimes, even when we see its necessity and benefit, we do not know exactly how to approach it. St. Albert prescribes fasting for the first Carmelite friars. More precisely: fasting in the sense of abstaining from meat and fasting in the sense of self-denial. These are two different forms of fasting. The rule discusses these one by one (according to our later classification, these are two chapters of the rule). In Czech, we probably do not have more precise terms to distinguish these two kinds of fasting. Speaking of abstaining from meat might be clearer than talking about fasting. And our Czech word for fasting could then be reserved only for the so-called self-denial fasting, which means eating less.
But I would not want to focus our attention on the specific measure of fasting. On how strict fasting is – or to put it quite bluntly – how big a piece of bread one cuts for oneself and when one eats or does not eat meat. Moreover, there is a general issue with asceticism in the form of abstaining from meat today. Notice: it is not a heroic act today that a person does not eat meat. How many people do not eat it! For entirely different reasons than self-denial and love for Christ.
Therefore, I would put our efforts for asceticism (fast) on the very broadest foundation. The fact that a person denies oneself something means: I do not claim everything. I acknowledge that in my life it is not about having everything I can have – especially not in earthly matters. If I were to focus on having everything, I would grieve over my earnings... And so by denying myself something, I show myself: “No, I do not want to have everything! I do not need to have everything because there are other values than those pleasant, immediately attainable, material ones. And to maintain my sense of those other values and to strive towards them, I limit myself in food, drink, comfort, etc. I cannot and do not want to have everything.”
Furthermore, it is interesting how fasting (self-denial) is linked to the liturgical year. This is also something I have mentioned in some context and the thoughts often return to me: it seems to me that in the general awareness of us Catholics, our sense of the church year is dulled. I know it is tough to celebrate feasts or solemnities of the Lord when they fall on a regular working day. But if the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Feast of the Virgin Mary, or the Lenten or Advent seasons were merely something we remember formally, it would be a great pity. In the rule, self-denial fasting is connected to the experiences of the liturgical year and helps lead to them.
Whereas abstaining from meat is prescribed absolutely. The rule does not mention how long it should last. The first Carmelites did not eat meat at all. I do not say this because I am advocating for vegetarianism or because I want to focus our attention on food. I just want to emphasize that here the sentiment "I do not need to have everything!" appears as a way of thinking that should guide us throughout life. It is a manifestation of our penitence, our constant conversion. Communities, like the first Carmelites, wanted to live this way continuously – and to bear witness to this to other Christians. To remind ourselves and others: “I am just a person who travels this earth for several decades before the Lord God calls him to Himself... And so I do not care to experience everything here...” This is something that does not apply only on Friday or only during Lent. To be connected to Christ means that we continually offer Him the conversion of our hearts throughout our lives.
Our asceticism will, of course, take on various other forms. Quickly, I thought of: tolerating the weaknesses of the people around me (which they cannot overcome, just like I can never fully conquer my weaknesses) or perhaps accepting a life partner that adult children choose, or intentional modesty followed by generosity in the area of charity, but also the wise endurance of various pains in parish life, perseverance during difficult communication with a priest, etc.
The statue of the founders of the Trinitarian Order and St. Ivan on Charles Bridge. St. John of Matha holds loosened chains and a ransom coin in his left hand and a book in his right (a reference to the rule?). Next to him is St. Ivan with a doe, and below is St. Felix of Valois with a Christian freed from captivity. Another imprisoned captive is guarded by a remarkable Turk with his dog. An excellent work by Ferdinand Brokof from 1714.
Photo: P. Vojtěch Kodet
As I pondered over the rule of St. Albert, I found an interestingly similar rule online, which is about ten years older and was approved in 1198 by Pope Innocent III for the Trinitarian Order. Those who know Prague know that there is also a statue of St. John of Matha and St. Ivan on Charles Bridge. St. John of Matha wrote this rule; he is the founder of the Trinitarians, who had their monastery in the Baroque period near the Church of the Holy Trinity on Spálená Street. I compared these rules, and it is interesting. For example, St. Albert does not prescribe at all what their habit should look like. From this comparison, it is evident that St. Albert speaks relatively little about external matters. This is also a hint! He focuses on what is important, what is spiritual. He does not say how we should address our superior, what beds and mattresses the brothers are not allowed to have, etc. But primarily, through this comparison, I clearly saw that it is truly not a cliché when it is said of our rule that it is a text made heavily from citations from Scripture. In the other rule, I recognized that this is not a given. There are many instructions, but the connection to Scripture in it is not nearly as tight. St. Albert, who wrote this rule for us, was a person who had Scripture “in his blood.” For instance, right at the beginning, when he wishes us a greeting and blessing, he quotes Holy Scripture. And when he gives various instructions, he quotes Holy Scripture again. This can comfort us while also obliging us.
I will slowly move toward the conclusion. If we were to thoroughly go through our rule of St. Albert, we would still encounter great themes, which I will intentionally omit now. These include prayer: let each remain in his cell and meditate on the law of the Lord and be vigilant in prayer unless otherwise legitimately occupied. Thus, spending the day with the Lord. Another theme is spiritual armor. By using citations from Scripture, St. Albert encourages: Put on the spiritual weapons – the belt of purity, the breastplate of holy thoughts, the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, the shield of faith, the sword of the Spirit... I will just remind in very general terms: it is important for a person to be able to be alone enough to be aware of what he says and what he does. To be able to perceive what ways of acting and speaking are repeated in my life, what my habits are. And to shape them with my will. If they are good habits, they are virtues. If they are bad habits, they are vices. If I can grasp my habit and deepen it, it is as if it were a weapon for me. In the same way, “the weapon” is also Holy Scripture for me, its knowledge, the ability to recall what God has said to us in it. This is what the Scripture itself talks about and it has been passed down in the Christian tradition.
Other important themes, about which the rule writes and about which we could still talk more, are silence and work. Those of you who would like to ponder them more closely can refer to earlier issues of the magazine Karmel,1 which addresses them in detail through Kees Waaijman's commentary on the rule that we published.
I would like to mention a few final thoughts. At the end of the rule – I would like to emphasize this – there are several admonitions to humility. I have already said here that I would be very reluctant if anyone among us were to succumb to the temptation of considering Carmel as a prestigious matter in their life. St. Albert says: “You, brother, and whoever will succeed you as prior, remember, as the Lord says: Whoever wishes to be great, let him be a servant. And you, brothers, when you are to listen to the prior, hold him in humble respect. Think of him who says: “Whoever hears you hears me.”
Humility, humility, humility. There is never enough of it in life. The moment we think we are already humble people, we have lost our humility. This is often spoken of by preachers. So – let us not overlook this very hearty, sincere, truthful word that St. Albert communicates to us at the conclusion of the rule.
St. Albert also repeatedly warns us not to forget that we will not receive our reward in this world. That our perspective is the coming of Christ. The Lord Jesus will come and reward. We must please Him at that moment, not people. It should please Him what we have done, not us. This perspective is also frequently mentioned by Father Kees Waaijman in his commentary on the rule.
And at the very end of the rule, it is interesting how St. Albert says: “If someone wishes to do more,” it is understood: than what is written in these rules: “the Lord Himself will reward him when He comes.” Here, there is a clear reference to the Lord’s coming. “(Such a person) should, however, discern properly, for discernment directs virtues.”
Thus, St. Albert, in all that he prescribes to us, seem to encourage us: “Look – this is a collection of instructions that is certainly not complete. Each of you will consider in your life how to fulfill it, how to live according to it. It is up to you. If you add something more to it – good, but be careful, it is necessary to discern. Some one-sidedness or excess would not be beneficial.” I admire how humbly he speaks of the rules he has written. He calmly admits that someone might want to do even more; he merely encourages caution. Because he is aware that what he has written is presented with balance and prudence. After all, in several places in the rule, he directly wrote: (I prescribe to you) “if possible...” Set up a chapel and go there every morning for Mass, if possible... Pray in your cell, if possible and you are not legitimately otherwise occupied. Maintain fasting this way..., if possible, meaning if illness or some other legitimate reason does not prevent it.
Brothers and sisters, at the end of this reflection on the rule of Carmel, I feel it is my duty to say: in our entire life – as the Lord Jesus clearly tells us and the entire New Testament – it is about love. The Apostle says: “The fulfilling of the law is love” (Romans 13:10). This is said in a different context and about a different law, but it applies to all laws. Let us be aware also regarding our rule.
The fact that a text of the rule, which is so old and comes from an entirely different environment, still speaks to us today fills us with enthusiasm and gratitude toward God. But let us not forget to always translate it into this dimension. God wants each of us to grow in love. With the help of this rule, with the help of our community. If this happens – excellent, then we are on the right track, thanks to God. If it is not happening, we are not doing something right. God is love, the fulfilling of the law is love, it is about growing in love.
