§ 213. Monasteries

In the beginning the monks lived each by himself in places removed from the rest of the world, having built his own cell (χέλλιον), for which reason they were called cell-dwellers (χελλιῶται). When several monks had gathered in one place, each with his own cell, near to one another, then from all these cells there arose a kind of small settlement, which by its form was called a lavra (λαύρα, vicus),[1] or later, when the cenobitic life was introduced, a monastery (μοναστήριον). There were separate monasteries for monks and separate ones for nuns. There also existed joint monasteries for monks and nuns together, but such monasteries were forbidden in the 8th century by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.[2]

A monastery may and can be built only with the consent of the competent diocesan bishop. This is ordained by the 4th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. At the Ninth Local Council this ordinance of the Ecumenical Council was repeated: “No one may found a monastery without the knowledge and consent of the bishop (ἐπισκόπου συνειδότος καὶ ἐπιτρέποντος); and only when the bishop consents and gives permission, and the prescribed prayer has been performed, as has been piously established from of old, then let the monastery be built, and let the monastery itself and all that belongs to it be entered in the register-book (βρεβίῳ ἐγκαταγράφεσθαι), and let that book be deposited in the episcopal archive”—so ordains the 1st canon of the said local council. According to this basic canonical norm, a devout man who wishes to build a new monastery must report this to the bishop in whose territory the monastery is to be built, and when the bishop has examined and satisfied himself as to the sincerity of the man’s intention, and that he is doing this truly out of a pious purpose and without harm to others, and moreover that the site for the monastery is suitable and that the man himself offers assurance that he will complete the monastery entirely and furnish it with everything necessary, then the bishop issues the corresponding permission, and in the contrary case he withholds it.[3] Having permitted the building, and after the corresponding written instrument concerning the monastery and its property has been drawn up, the bishop, at the corresponding church rite, lays the holy cross in the foundation of the new monastery (τὸ σταυροπήγιον), and when the building is complete he consecrates it.[4]

A monastery once consecrated must remain a monastery forever, nor can it ever be turned into a secular dwelling (κοσμικὸν καταγώγιον), and the goods belonging to a monastery must forever remain the property of the monastery; and whoever acts against this is subject to canonical penalties (ὑποκεῖσθαι ἐκ τῶν κανόνων ἐπιτιμίοις). This is ordained by the 24th canon of the Council of Chalcedon; and the same is repeated by the 49th Trullan canon and the 13th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.[5] For the inviolability of monastic property the monastery’s superior is responsible, and in the first place the competent diocesan bishop. This is conditioned by that archpastoral duty which the canons lay upon the bishop, to take care of everything dedicated to the Church and to pious institutions. By monastic property is understood everything that yields any income (αὐτούργια), and all the movable things that are the property of the monastery. All the immovable as well as the movable things of a monastery must, therefore, by the ordinance of the 12th canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, be kept by the monastery’s superior under responsibility to the diocesan bishop, and he must see to it that these things always remain in the full ownership of the monastery, and that they may under no circumstances be ceded into the ownership of laymen; and should this happen by chance, everything must by law be restored again to the monastery.[6]

As we have seen, every monastery together with all its monks must be in complete dependence on the competent diocesan bishop and subject to his oversight and judgment, both in external relations and as regards internal administration. The bishop takes care that the monastic property is preserved, that in the monastery the monastic rule is observed, that nothing new is introduced into the monastic life without his knowledge, and that nothing is introduced or changed in the monastic administration without his permission. He confirms the election of the superior and of all other persons who are to perform the various monastic offices, and every resolution of the monastic brotherhood—whether it concerns the monks and the novices, or the administration of the monastery’s estate—all this and the like depends on the bishop’s approval. And for his own personal assurance that in every monastery everything is done according to the rule and that the ordinances of the church authority are everywhere carried out, the bishop himself visits the monasteries, or sends his representative to inspect the monasteries and monastic affairs and to report to him fully on everything. Where the need of the Church requires it, the bishop also appoints a special exarch for the eparchial monasteries (ἔξαρχος τῶν μοναστηρίων), whose task it is to take care of all the monasteries that are in the eparchy, and to report periodically thereon to the bishop;[7] and in the episcopal council (consistory) there is a special reporter for monastic affairs, the sakellarios.[8]

According to this relation of the monasteries to the bishop as the head of the given eparchy, all monasteries are called eparchial (ἐπαρχιακά or ἐνοριακὰ μοναστήρια). An exception to this are the so-called stauropegial or patriarchal monasteries (σταυροπηγιακά, πατριαρχικὰ μοναστήρια). These are certain privileged monasteries which are independent of the local bishops in whose eparchies they are situated, but depend directly on a patriarch. Such monasteries are called stauropegial because it was the patriarch in question who sent the holy cross to be laid in the foundation of the monastery (σταυροπήγιον, crucis fixio), and not the competent diocesan bishop, and by this the patriarch established the privilege of the monastery in question, which was regarded as independent in relation to the diocesan bishop and not subject to him. Such a monastery is, in the sources of church law, also called patriarchal. In these stauropegial or patriarchal monasteries the name of the diocesan bishop is not commemorated at the respective services, but that of the patriarch; the appointment of the superior, oversight of the monastic administration, judgment in the affairs of the brotherhood—all this and more belongs to the patriarch, who ordinarily oversees and cares for these monasteries through his exarchs. The right of stauropegion belongs to every patriarch in all the eparchies of his own territory; the patriarch of Constantinople, however, may exercise this right also outside the boundaries of his territory.[9]

Among the privileged monasteries are also the imperial monasteries. These are monasteries which various pious rulers founded to the glory of God. They furnished these monasteries with everything necessary, so that the monastery and the church within it might be maintained in good order for all future time, and so that the monks might have everything they need for living. These same rulers confirmed this by their own special charters, and thereby the monastery’s estates were freed from every state levy. For such monasteries special statutes or typika were issued, in which, besides all else that is said in every other monastic typikon, express mention was made of the privileged position of such a monastery.[10] By virtue of this position, these monasteries were free from direct spiritual dependence on the competent bishop, and were administered entirely independently. The monastic administration was conducted by the monastery’s superior, the hegumen, together with a fixed number of senior monks, and for this administration the hegumen was accountable to no one. The patriarch, or in general the head of the given local church in which such a monastery was situated, exercised only oversight to see that everything in the monastery was done according to the prescriptions of the relevant typikon, and this oversight the patriarch exercised through a special exarch, who periodically—usually during the Great Fast each year—visited the monastery, exactly as he did the stauropegial monasteries. The patriarch also had the right, upon the proposal of the monastic brotherhood and after the canonically prescribed examination, to appoint the monastery’s superior, the hegumen; and the same patriarch himself ordained, or authorized another bishop to ordain, the hieromonks needed for the monastery.[11]

According to the manner in which the monks live in the monasteries in question, monasteries are divided into cenobitic and idiorrhythmic.

Of cenobitic monasteries (κοινόβια) we have already spoken. So are called all those monasteries, without distinction as to whether they are eparchial or stauropegial, in which the monks lead a common life, receive their clothing and everything they need from the monastery, always eat together at a common table, possess nothing of their own personally, and every earning of theirs goes into the common monastic treasury. All the monks depend on the superior (hegumen or archimandrite), whom they themselves elect and whom the competent church authority confirms.

Idiorrhythmic (ἰδιόρρυθμα) or free monasteries arose in the 14th century. The first such monasteries arose on Athos, and afterward they are found in other regions as well. The appearance of these idiorrhythmic (from the word ἰδιόρρυθμος, sui juris) monasteries was occasioned by external social circumstances in the East, and by the fact that among individual monks the practical spirit gained the upper hand over the old, strictly ascetic spirit. In these monasteries too the general monastic rules are kept, and piety and prayer in them are no less than in the cenobitic monasteries. Only the vow of poverty (στενοχωρία) is understood differently here. Every monk has his own separate property, eats separately in his own cell, from whatever food—always Lenten, of course—he prepares in his own little kitchen, and only on Sundays and feast days do all the monks gather at the common monastic table. Prayers and church services are held in common every day. The monks occupy themselves either with books or with handicraft, as each prefers, and of what they earn from this, they give to the monastic treasury a certain fixed portion for the general monastic expenses, and keep the rest for their own maintenance and for procuring what they need according to their occupation. When they are dying, they usually leave their private property to one or another brother of their monastery, and if they designate no brother as heir, then everything passes into the common monastic treasury. The monastery’s superior is elected each year by the senior monks in a general assembly of the brotherhood. This superior is obliged to take care of the regular divine service, of the income and expenditure for the maintenance of the church, the monastery buildings, and for the general expenses of the monastery, and at the end of each year he renders an account to the brotherhood. In the general structure of monastic life in these idiorrhythmic monasteries, they show a mixture of the anchoritic and the cenobitic life, roughly as it was at the time when Pachomius the Great was organizing cenobitism.[12] The monks of these monasteries assert as their principle a personal self-awareness of the task of monasticism, and accordingly they see to it that by their life and by their deeds they show themselves worthy of the order. This principle, although it has much good in itself, does not correspond to the basic institution of monasticism, according to which poverty and the subjection of one’s own will to the superior constitute the fundamental conditions of that institution. In practice, however, the life of the idiorrhythmic monasteries has very often shown itself to the detriment of the monastic institution, and for this reason several synodal decisions were issued at various times against these monasteries.[13]

Similar to these Greek idiorrhythmic monasteries (of which, moreover, very few exist today) are the Russian non-communal (необщежительные) monasteries. These arose in the second half of the 18th century, when the Russian state appropriated to itself certain villages belonging to the monasteries in question, and in place of this ordained the annual payment of a fixed sum of money. The monks in such monasteries receive from their monastery only food, and everything else they must earn for themselves. With this earning of their own they may dispose during their lifetime as they please. Nor are they obliged to give anything to the monastery; but if a monk has disposed of nothing during his lifetime, everything that remains when he dies passes into the ownership of the monastery of which he was a brother. In everything else the discipline in such Russian monasteries is the same as in the cenobitic ones, except that the monks do not have the right themselves to elect the monastery’s superior, but the higher church authority appoints and designates him for them.[14]