§ 209. Monasticism According to Its Organization

Monasticism is one and undivided in the Orthodox Church.[1] For all monks without distinction, those rules hold good whose foundation was laid by Pachomius the Great and which were then developed in detail by Basil the Great, and which, supplemented in accordance with the legal prescripts of the ecclesiastical and civil authority, found expression in various monastic statutes, and especially in the Studion statute.

According to the degree of ascetic life, monks are divided into rhasophores, monks of the small schema, and monks of the great schema.

Rhasophores (ῥασοφόροι, ῥασοφοροῦντες) are monks who have been received into the order, having undergone the canonically established novitiate and shown themselves worthy of the order, but who have not taken the monastic vows. One becomes a rhasophore by a particular sacred rite, which the monastic superior ordinarily performs in church in the presence of the whole monastic brotherhood; and they are called rhasophores because they have the right to wear the rason (ῥάσον, riza), together with which the kamilavkion (καμηλαύχιον) is always worn.[2] Rhasophores are obliged to fulfill the monastic rules in every respect, just as monks of a higher ascetic degree do, and although they have not solemnly taken the monastic vows, they are morally bound by those vows, and it is forbidden to them to cast off the rason and kamilavkion and return again to the laity. This prohibition, however, is only of an ethical character, “for,” remarks Balsamon in his commentary on the 5th canon of the Ninth Local Council, “it is not fitting that one who has put on the monastic garb should today appear among the people as a monk, and tomorrow again as a layman; this would mean making a mockery of the holy order, and for this reason such a monk ought to be compelled to remain in his monastery.”[3] Should a rhasophore monk insist, come what may, on leaving the monastery and returning to lay life, this cannot lawfully be prevented, and he is then entitled also to enter marriage, should he wish.[4]

Monks of the small schema (μικρόσχημοι) are monks who have solemnly taken the monastic vows. They bear this name to distinguish them from monks of the great schema. Schema (σχῆμα, “form,” “habit”) in canonical terminology means outward humility, lowliness, which manifests inward contrition of soul,[5] and according to the degree of that contrition the schema is called either small (μικρόν) or great (μέγα).[6] At the corresponding sacred rite in church, the monk of the small schema takes the monastic vows and solemnly promises: a) that he will always abstain from everything that gratifies bodily desires, b) that he will be obedient to everyone until death, and c) that he will never seek to possess anything of his own. As outward tokens, the monk of the small schema receives at this same rite the parakamilavkion (παρακαμηλαύχιον, or περικεφαλαία) and the mantle (μανδύας).[7] Whoever has properly become a monk of the small schema can never again of his own will leave monasticism, and is bound until death by the vows he has taken.

Monks of the great schema (μεγαλόσχημοι), or monks of the angelic habit (τοῦ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος), attain this degree at a special sacred rite in church, at which they repeat, in a stricter form, the vows of the small schema, and receive as outward tokens the koukoulion (κουκούλιον) in place of the former parakamilavkion, and the analabos (ἀνάλαβος) or paramandyas (παραμανδύας) adorned with crosses.[8] A monk of the great schema undertakes voluntarily to spend his whole life in the strictest fasting and unceasing prayer to God; and the superior of the monastery concerned may permit only that monk to devote himself to the life of the great schema who has for many years distinguished himself in the daily, strict fulfillment of all the monastic rules.

Akin to the monks of the great schema are the anchorites (ἀναχωρηταί), who give themselves to a solitary life, shutting themselves in some small cell separated from the monastery, and spend their whole life in daily fasting and prayer. For these monks the 41st canon of the Council in Trullo ordains that, before giving themselves to the solitary life, they must spend a year outside the monastery in the world, so that the constancy of their resolve for such a life may be clearly shown; and once they have begun such a life, they may never again go out from their enclosures, except in the case that the competent bishop permits them this for some particular need. To these belong also the eremites (ἐρημῖται), who spend their whole life in some desert, and of whom the 42nd canon of the Council in Trullo makes mention.

By its institution and organization, monasticism occupies a distinct position in the Church. The canons, when they speak of monks, distinguish them both from the clergy and from the laity.[9] Accordingly, when a monk is to be received into the clergy, he must pass through all the degrees of the hierarchy, just as any other layman must. As we mentioned earlier (§ 208), monks were at first even forbidden to enter the clergy. When, in the fifth century, separate churches began to be built beside monasteries, the bishops then ordained particular older monks as presbyters for the church services. In the course of time, as the significance of monasticism grew ever stronger in the Church and in Christian society, the bishops began to ordain as presbyters all monks who performed some more important service in the monastery. Those monks who received the presbyteral degree were called hieromonks (ἱερομόναχοι), and those who were ordained deacons were called hierodeacons (ἱεροδιάκονοι); all the rest were called, as they are still called today, monks (μοναχοί). Monastic superiors could be, and indeed were, mere monks, that is, without presbyteral ordination.[10]

All monks without distinction are dependent upon the competent eparchial bishop. According to the teaching of the canon law of the Orthodox Church, this must be understood in an absolute sense, for there is not, nor can there be, a single monk—whatever dignity he may hold in the hierarchy, or whatever office he may occupy—who is not in unconditional subordination and dependence upon that bishop in whose eparchy he resides.[11] This teaching is exactly and clearly expressed in the 4th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that of Chalcedon, and was afterward repeated in all the other canons that speak of monks.[12] The bishop accordingly has both the right and the duty to watch over all monasteries and all monks, and monks, in fulfilling the prescripts of the monastic rules, must obey the orders of the competent eparchial bishop and do nothing that lies outside the scope of those rules without the bishop’s express consent. With the bishop’s consent, monks could, and still can today, perform any service in church administration. Balsamon, in his commentary on the aforementioned canon of Chalcedon, mentions that monks were entrusted with the conduct not only of ecclesiastical but also of state and public affairs (βασιλικὰς καὶ δημοσιακὰς δουλείας), but always and only with the permission of the competent eparchial bishop.[13] The relations of subordination of monks to their respective bishops have been confirmed also by state legislation.[14] For a monk’s disobedience to his bishop, the Council of Chalcedon, by its 8th canon, ordains that such a monk be excommunicated, and if he persists in his obstinacy, by the 18th canon of the same council such a monk must be deposed.