(According to P. Keese Waaijmana, O.Carm.)
Having Places to Dwell (chap. 10–17)
In addition to a well-structured community (chap. 4), a basic condition for the life of Carmelites is a place to dwell.1 This includes: separate cells (chap. 6) and a common dining hall (chap. 7), which cannot be arbitrarily changed (chap. 8), and outsiders have access through the prior (chap. 9).
In these chapters, we do not find mention of any designated space for prayer. The instruction about a chapel appears several chapters later. Is a place to dwell sufficient for the Carmelite way of life by itself?
Moreover, notice that the text alternates between older and newer sections: the younger – from the revision of the rule in 1247 – is chap. 5, according to which brothers may choose between living in hermitages (in solitude) and living in convents in cities; then follows the older (original Albertine) text about separate cells. The regulation about the common dining hall is again a younger addition from the mentioned revision of the rule, whereas the subsequent chapters on the unchangeability of the place and the prior's cell are derived from the older Albertine text.
Thus, these lines also alternate between attention to what is outside and what is inside: after mentioning the surroundings, which may be solitude or another environment (understood: including the city), the focus turns inward to the place to dwell (cells, dining hall, non-exchangeability of cells). The instruction about receiving guests through the prior again concerns the relationship with the outside.
The term "place" can be used in various meanings:
1. Geographic designation: the Carmelite community was established in the Wadi Ain es-Siah valley in the Carmel Mountains. Archaeological research has confirmed that as cells, the brothers inhabited caves scattered along the valley slopes, with the prior's cell located roughly at the entrance to this area and a chapel standing amidst the dwellings. Such a scheme was typical for such communities. After the Carmelites approached the mendicant orders, their places of dwellings changed accordingly to urban convents.
2. Status in terms of canon law: at that time, the term locus religiosus (religious place) was used in the church. It referred to the place where a religious community lived and expressed its recognition as a religious community. Only the local bishop could grant such status to a place and a community.
When St. Albert therefore refers to the community "at the spring on Mount Carmel", it is more than just a geographical designation; he canonically legitimizes it as a religious society.
3. Socio-religious status: deep into the Middle Ages, solitude was a distinctive feature of religious life. Religious individuals belonged in lonely places. Solitude was synonymous with their way of life. The words of our rule that Carmelites can have places to dwell elsewhere than in solitude: "or where they may be given," provide a new alternative: the mendicant way of life in cities.
4. Place in a mystical sense: the Carmel Mountains were for the first Carmelites a place of withdrawal from the world, corresponding to their inner desire to be drawn into God. This contemplative "shift" from the world to God happens concretely – in the place where I live, work, and dwell – but it is not a transfer (in a transportation sense). It is my transformation through the search for God. In a mystical sense, dwelling in such a place means stepping out from what is solid, certain, anticipated, and planned; and progressing further – into an uninhabited area, into solitude and the desert. So that we may be drawn deeper by God into His inexhaustible goodness and boundless love. This is the place of mystical solitude sought by the desert fathers.
In Solitude or in the City (chap. 5)
- You may have places in solitude or wherever you are given them,
- suitable and fit for your way of religious life,
- according to what the prior and the other brothers deem appropriate.
This chapter prescribes three things: where Carmelites may have their place of dwelling (A), what criterion must be met in doing so (B), and who decides this (C).
A) According to this wording of the rule, formulated in the reform under Innocent IV, from 1247, Carmelites could freely choose between life in solitude and the mendicant way of life. We have already mentioned that in earlier times religious life always meant life in solitude. And hermits were regarded as the truest religious individuals. By the end of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th century, religious life began to approach cities. Initially, religious individuals resided near cities. They would visit the city but always return to their residences at night. Later, communities directly lived in the cities. At the same time, urban society was being formed. Mendicant brothers were in contact primarily with its poorer and the poorest classes. The revised rule left it to the Carmelites whether to choose life in solitude or in the city. Thus, they found themselves in a socio-religious tension that they had to resolve. For this, they were provided with the criterion.
B) As a criterion in choosing the place, it holds that these places must be: "suitable and fit for your way of religious life." Therefore, it does not matter whether the residence is in a lonely place or in the city, let alone the geographical location or canonical status of the community. Of course, the place must be somehow suitable for settling; the ecclesiastical superior must agree; if it is meant to be a hermitage colony, the arrangement of the place must correspond to that, and if it is to be an urban convent, it must have what belongs to it. But still, it becomes evident that what is important is for the chosen place to be a place in the mentioned mystical sense. The place chosen by the prior and the brothers must contribute to the internal transformation into God. The more the chosen place resembles the character of the desert, where everything depends solely on God and where we lose other supports, the more suitable it is. This perspective is crucial when choosing a location!
If this is taken into account, then regardless of where a place is chosen, it will always be "Carmel". One of the oldest key texts regarding the spirituality of our order is the so-called Rubrica prima, originating from 1281. It provides instruction and guidance for younger brothers on how to respond to questions about the origin and age of our order. A young Carmelite must know well from what Carmel emerges! From what source. "Carmel" is not a place in the Carmel Mountains, nor a hermitage, nor an urban monastery, but the place where, with Elijah, we allow ourselves to be drawn into God.
A question may arise here: are all places "suitable and fit" in this sense? Every place? After all, one can connect with the Creator anywhere, turn to the Lord... Suitable and fit are those places whose function and status are not predetermined. The more a place is defined in advance by natural location, historical value, social significance, or inevitable function, the less suitable it is. The more it approaches insignificance, as in the desert, where everything has meaning only in relation to God, the more suitable and fitting it will be. From this perspective, even living in the very church is not a suitable assumption. Because then the religious significance of all realities is already definitively established in advance. I consider it fortunate that the issue of space for prayer comes up in the rule only later. Only after we had to reflect on the suitability of our place for our way of spiritual life. It is not desirable to define the hermitage monastery or urban convent here. Indeed, to define the very "Carmel" would be disruptive. What is now important is to find that place.
C) In choosing the place, the prior and the brothers decide, that is, the collegium, the community.
Cells (chap. 6)
The rule prescribes: "...each of you shall have a separate individual cell." Here it speaks of residences for individual brothers. Sometimes in hermit settlements, the cells of brothers were arranged at a certain distance from each other (and perhaps in such a way that all cells had a view of one spot in the middle); at other times they were adjoined by a side wall, but each had a separate entrance. At first, Carmelites lived in non-adjoining cells. After the revision of the rule, this was abandoned. With it, the function of cells also changed. At that time, common meals in a common refectory were established, so they no longer prepared their meals in cells. In cities, it also depended on what houses were given to them. Therefore, the rule accounts for adaptation to local circumstances: "according to the disposition of the place." Advocates of the mendicant style departed from individual separate cells, and this became generally established. Since 1294, the statutes of the order no longer mention separate cells, while the provision of the rule has remained unchanged, viewed as a symbol for reflection.
Separate cells had, according to the old eremitic experience, to allow prayers to be offered aloud, to "sigh" loudly. Nicholas Gallus writes: "No common walls! How can one pray aloud then?" The rule emphasizes twice that each should have a cell to themselves: "singuli vestrum singulas habeant cellulas separatas", i.e., each individual of you shall have an individual separate cell.
A cell not only separates from the surroundings (sets apart for God), but also gathers one from distraction. John Cassian speaks of how thoughts easily spill out into the wilderness while being outside the cell under the open sky, and all concentration focused exclusively on matters of the heart disperses into multitude.2 A cell leads to simplicity and modesty. It demands one to let go of all that has been gathered and unessential, all self-deception and comparison. It brings one to liberating solitude. A cell introduces me to the mystical space of place. What "a place to dwell" gives to all, a cell gives to me personally: it releases me from interpersonal considerations, from the prejudices and judgments that others have about me. And through a painful process (almost peeling off one layer after another), it liberates me.
However, a cell simultaneously accepts me, feels my solitude. The Jewish thinker Emmanuel Levinas associates the hospitable aspect of human home with the role of a woman, with femininity. Similarly, the inner space of a cell is a womb of compassion, of God's presence. In Carmel, this unconditional acceptance, this home characteristic is associated with the Virgin Mary. A cell, like Mary, is a sign of hospitality and acceptance.
A cell is fundamentally important for the Carmelite life. Therefore, this provision regarding cells is given in the rule the same weight as the choice of the prior. The cell is assigned to me after consideration by the prior and the brothers, and with great care, whether it is suitable for me. There is nothing exaggerated about this solemn assignment of the cell. After all, the cell is the umbilical cord that connects us to the place.
Common Dining Hall (chap. 7)
The provision regarding the common dining hall originates from Innocent's revision of the rule. Common meals and common prayers became an obligation in monasteries at that time, as the new religious communities followed the Benedictine tradition. (Philip Ribot gives another practical reason: before the appointed brother divided food into all the cells, the portions were cold.) In any case, the common meal meant a weakening of the eremitic life. It expressed equality and mutual love.
Listening to Sacred Scripture during meals is also an old monastic custom. It prevented idle chatter and excessive focus on the food. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Mt 4:4 according to Deut 8:3.)
In Innocent's wording of the rule, the provision regarding the common dining hall clearly relates to the prescription about separate cells. The already cited E. Levinas points out that during the enjoyment of food, a person does not pay attention to the world around, but rather closes in. Just as in the original Albertine rule, the cell separated from the world and reserved for God, eating in the cell further strengthened this element. What did the revision of the rule aim for with the establishment of communal eating? A common dining hall relativizes my meal. And just as the communal listening to Scripture in silence relativizes meditation day and night in the cell (chap. 10). For during the meal, the Scripture was read continuously, without selecting just passages. Listening was more relaxed than during meditation and less focused than during liturgy.
The rule does not impose; it mentions: "where it can be easily maintained." However, it is not entirely clear whether this consideration for circumstances pertains to the establishment of a common meal, the construction of a common dining hall, or the reading of Scripture. (It could relate to all these elements: it is possible that the hermits resisted the establishment of communal dining; or existing colonies of hermits would not be forced to immediately build a dining hall; there might have been a lack of text or a reader for the reading.) The transition to communal eating meant a weakening of the hermitic aspect of the lives of Carmelites and a strengthening of community life. But let us not overestimate this change: both elements – solitude and community – are already found as supporting pillars in the text written by St. Albert. The emphasis has only shifted now.
Not Changing Places (chap. 8)
The prohibition against changing or exchanging the designated place directly follows in the original Albertine text after the command to allocate each brother a separate cell. With the insertion of the chapter about the common dining hall (during Innocent’s revision of the rule), this conceptual continuity was interrupted. However, even the text in its revised form does not lack its logic. Just as the enjoyment of food can enclose a brother, which the presence of others and communal dining are meant to break, so the opposite tendency can occur: attaching oneself to others, so that we are not ourselves. Changing places would mean making one's privacy (literally: one's intimacy) an object of exchange.
None of the brothers shall, without the prior's permission, who at that time shall be, be allowed to change the place assigned to him or to exchange it with another.
In terms of content, this prohibition has several meanings: not changing a cell within the monastery, not entering within one hermitage into space reserved for another hermit, not moving from one convent to another, not traveling.
In the early days of the order, the prohibition pertained to moving within the monastery; later, it was probably about changing the place as such, meaning: the whole convent moved somewhere else (do not forget that the term place in the rule denotes the entire hermitic colony). Another possible meaning is that change of place would signify improvement of position (status).
Generally, in human life, it holds: by exchanging and trading, I treat realities as if I were their master, owned them. I seize them, I manipulate them. And thus, whoever changes his place or negotiates about it, makes the place ipso facto a "product" – as if it were the outcome of his activity. But place is given to us! It is something that I accept, a gift from God – just like God's dwelling in us. And whoever acts in such a way falls out of the community, ceases to be one of the brothers or sisters, and tries to raise himself above others. Whoever changes his cell alienates himself from the community. Therefore, changing a place within the community can only be permitted by the community itself in the person of the prior. This helps prevent the mentality of exchange transactions.
It is inherent to my place that it is commanded to me, assigned to me, permitted. Unfortunately, we understand this less and less today. And so we do not allow ourselves to be influenced by our place and seek happiness elsewhere, with others. The only place where I will find fulfillment is the place around me, the place where I am. Everything else is nothing. To change, exchange, barter on a whim are paths that lead nowhere, dead ends.
Cell at the Entrance (chap. 9)
The rule generally foresaw hospitality. In the Albertine rule, receiving guests is associated with the designation of a place: "The prior's cell shall be near the entrance, so that he may first meet the newcomers…” The residence of the brothers thus has a frontal side, the entrance. This plays an important role in the relationship between what is inside and what is outside.
First, let us focus on the outward view inwards, that is, through the eyes of one who approaches the hermitage. We could distinguish four categories of guests:
A) Novices: in the hermitage, any hermit could receive his disciples and introduce them to the spiritual life. After the Carmelites became a community, no hermit can outwardly act as an independent "father." New members are welcomed by the community, not by an individual.
B) Pilgrims: pilgrimage was an ascetic way of life. The Carmelites themselves arose from the pilgrim movement. A pilgrim left their previous life and set out into an uncomfortable, dangerous world. The visit to sacred places, especially in the Holy Land, was an important element.
C) Other hermits: from monastic literature, we know that hermits visited sacred hermits to learn from them. (John Cassian says that for the renowned fathers, the constant restlessness due to the multitude of brothers coming to visit or to seek counsel for their spiritual progress was a great trial of patience.)
D) Believers from the vicinity: people living near the monastery sought help from the monks – teaching in spiritual matters, spiritual guidance, prayer, assistance in difficult situations.
We do not know what kind of people visited the hermits on Carmel. What is important is that they were people coming from outside, guests. They sought hospitality.
And hospitality reaches outward. The prior's cell near the entrance makes the place hospitable. For those living inside, the place is already completely hospitable. It now also opens outward. E. Levinas is convinced that only by opening our dwelling to guests do we arrive at the right relationship with it. "The possibility of opening to the other is just as essential to the essence of the house as closed windows and doors." For the encounter between the guest and hospitality, the personal meeting is essential, getting to know the other’s face. Only then will something be organized: "let everything that needs to be done then be done." The prior then knows who he is facing, understands the reason for their coming. The entrance is not a place, it is a person – the prior, "the sacrament of encounter," the face outward. Here the prior (lat. prior – the first), who otherwise is to be among the brothers as a servant and slave (chap. 22), in the encounter with the incoming outsider truly is the first (lat. primus).
Connection
The original "Carmel" – a group of hermits on no man's land, established by Albert the fundamental elements that open its inner space and regulate the relationship between the inside and the outside world.
- Chapters 4-9 build the "architecture" of Carmel. Its foundations are formed by: "First, therefore, we establish that you have one of you as prior..." and "Moreover... each of you shall have a separate individual cell..." In harmony, which is not without tension, the building principles of cenobitic life (having a prior) and hermitic life (having each a separate cell) are combined here. The revision in 1247 introduced a third element – place: "However, you may have places..."
- The inner space of the architecture of Carmel is composed of several tensions between the basic elements:
- place × community (between the place and its inhabitants)
- place × cell (where the place serves the community, the cell serves the individual)
- prior × brothers
- individual × community (the rule sometimes uses the pronouns you, your, and at other times speaks of each of the brothers).
In light of these tensions, it is clear how important the common dining hall is (compared to cells, this is a space for the community), oratory for common prayer (chap. 14), entrance, not exchanging cells. - Every architecture also exerts tension between what is inside and the outside. From the rule, it is evident that Carmelites are an autonomous community that chooses its own prior, determines where it will live, and so on. The flexibility in this tension (inside × outside) will be very important when relocating to Europe. The mentioned basic tensions will always be at play; the specific manifestation (solitude or city, more closeness or openness) is only relative.
The architecture of Carmel means basic equipment: the clothing that is worn, the house that is inhabited, the book that is read, the rite that is used in worship. It is meant to be used, and the key word here is to have. We have a prior to whom we listen, we have a place to live on, we have cells and a dining hall. This equipment will be enumerated further in the rule: we have Scripture, the psaltery, possessions, oratory, chapter. All this forms the basic equipment of Carmelite life. In the next section of the rule, the aim is to learn how to handle this equipment. By remaining in the cell, meditating on Scripture, reciting the psalms, acting collectively, meeting in the oratory, discussing matters of the salvation of souls. Handling all this signifies our spiritual transformation.
