Monasticism in light of Colossians 2

[onthenarrowpath]

Can someone tell me what the Colossian heresy actually was? Though I realize I’d first need to convert to Catholicism, I’ve been very interested in possibly entering a monastery to become a monk. But I’m a bit confused by Paul’s words in Colossians 2:20-23, in which he seems to speak negatively about asceticism. There are certain Bible commentaries I’ve read that indicate the monastic life…being a monk or hermit, fasting, contemplative prayer, living away from the rest of the world, etc…is actually in opposition to Paul’s teachings. So I don’t understand why there are monasteries in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Can anyone help me understand this better, and help me see why it would not be wrong to live such a life?

Thank you.

 

[NedKelly]

The exact nature of the Colossian heresy is perhaps impossible to determine, but the consensus is that is related to a practice that had developed of combining Jewish practices with pagan speculation. In the early days, there was a tendency by some, including even Peter, who insisted that the Gentiles adopt Jewish practices including circumcision. Paul opposed this, insisting that as we died with Christ in baptism, we were no longer subject to Mosaic Law. In Colossians 2, Paul here is speaking about living according to faith, not to the principles of the world, particularly to the letter of the law. This is consistent with his overall message, especially in Romans, and also in Hebrews which although not generally accepted as written by Paul, was almost certainly written by one his disciples such as Apollos. Where he says in 2:21, “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” (depending on which Bible translation you are using), he is not issuing instructions, he is giving examples of the regulations mentioned in 2:20 that he says the people of Colossus should not revert to. Remember he has previously rebuked Peter for reverting to the Jewish position of considering some foods unclean.
The verses say nothing about monastic life.
Remember too the metaphor of the Church as a body with many parts and functions (Rom 12:4), each of us having different gifts (Rom 12:5). Each of us should seek to understand our particular calling in the service of Our Lord Jesus Christ: some are called to serve as pastors, priests, nuns, teachers, missionaries, etc, and some are simply called to Christian witness in our roles of farmers, accountants, husbands, and wives.
Through prayer we should seek to understand our personal mission, and accept that the mission of others may be beyond our understanding. Personally, I do not understand the call to monastic life, but I find nothing in Holy Scripture which proscribes it, and I would not question those who believe that is their calling.
I hope this helps.

 

[revert_jen]

I always thought that the heresy of the Colosssians was an early form of Gnosticism. But I don’t have scholarly support for this or anything. To me, Col 2:9 “For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (RSV-CE) sounds like something you might say against the Gnostic notions of Christ as only apparently made flesh, and also as not God but an angel. Also 2:20-23 could relate to the Gnostic idea that all the material world was evil. This caused them to have very ascetic practices (in some cases) but as those practices were not based on “checking the indulgence of the flesh” (v. 23) but on the false idea that matter itself was evil, they could have no good result. (Of course in other cases, Gnostics engaged in very libertine behavior, under the idea that since all matter was evil, it didn’t matter what you did with/to your body. Maybe that came later, or was somewhere else. Or maybe I’m just wrong in my interpretation. ) Anyway, I don’t see anything in it that I would relate to monasticism.

I also wanted to point out that certain Protestant traditions also have monasteries–at least Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Lutherans. Of course, I’m not saying this to discourage you from joining the Church (!) but just to point out that monasticism is not limited to Catholics and Orthodox.

–Jen

 

[stuart12]

From Haydocks Commentary:

Ver. 20. If then you be dead with Christ, or if you be not of this world, why do you act as if you were in it? practising the ceremonies of the law, as if you still expected Christ; all which are hurtful to you. (St. Jerome) — In your baptism you died with Jesus Christ to all legal observances, and should not therefore suffer any carnal laws to be imposed upon you, as if you were still living in this first state of the world. (Bible de Vence) — These things have an appearance of humility, if you abstain from them through mortification, and not through any necessity, as if they were unclean. But if we look upon them, and reject them as impure, and despise those who do not follow our example, then these things, so far from being useful, become prejudicial. (Grotius) — Why do you yet decree[7] in this manner? (Witham)

Ver. 21. Touch not, &c. That is, why do you permit yourselves to be taught in this manner by those Jewish doctors: why do you touch or eat this, lest you be unclean? such superstitious observations, now at least, when there is no necessity nor obligation for you to observe them, tend to destruction, &c. (Witham) — The meaning is, that Christians should not subject themselves, either to the ordinances of the old law, forbidding touching or tasting things unclean: or to the superstitious invention of heretics, imposing such restraints, under pretence of wisdom, humility, or mortification. (Challoner)

Ver. 23. Which things have indeed (as such masters teach you) a shew of wisdom, in their nice superstitious ways, joined by some of them with extraordinary abstinences, and severities practised on the body in fasting, which they observe, without any honour or regard, even not to the satiating of the flesh; i.e. according to the common expression, with such an excess, as not to allow the body[8] what is sufficient or necessary to support nature, that a man may be able to labour and comply with his duties; but here is nothing against discreet fasting, and self-denials, so much recommended in the holy Scriptures. (Witham)

 

[RobNY]

Can someone tell me what the Colossian heresy actually was? Though I realize I’d first need to convert to Catholicism, I’ve been very interested in possibly entering a monastery to become a monk. But I’m a bit confused by Paul’s words in Colossians 2:20-23, in which he seems to speak negatively about asceticism. There are certain Bible commentaries I’ve read that indicate the monastic life…being a monk or hermit, fasting, contemplative prayer, living away from the rest of the world, etc…is actually in opposition to Paul’s teachings. So I don’t understand why there are monasteries in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. Can anyone help me understand this better, and help me see why it would not be wrong to live such a life?

Thank you.

The only sure path to union with God is the love of Jesus Christ. All subordinate ways and means-- fasting and discipline-- must be subsumed by and ordered toward charity, without which it is empty (see 1 Corinthians 13 on this very point!).

The heretics of every age have always had a false rigor about them. In the 1200s St. Dominic came upon some Albigensian heretics who were far more rigorous than the Catholics themselves were. The problem was that their theology was shot through with a hatred for creation which viewed material things as evil. They abstained not because they loved but because they hated. The Church does not direct us to abstain from material things because they are evil. Rather, they are good, and the Church exhorts us to abstain for the sake of something better.

The gnostic and dualist heretics abstained from food and sexual intercourse because they thought it would trap souls in matter-- and they wrongly thought that ‘salvation’ was the freeing of souls from matter. The Christian knows that food and sexual intercourse are very good things, but abstains from them, perhaps, to show that God has created us as more than just beings who can attain to material goods. We are rational, spiritual beings within whom God Himself may tabernacle.

Thus Jesus says that, if you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and come follow me (Matthew 19:21). Jesus says that when the Bridegroom is gone, then his disciples will fast (Matthew 9:15). Jesus says that there are those who give us marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven-- and that those who can do this, ought to do this! (Matthew 19:12). Jesus gives a place to voluntary poverty for the gospel, fasting, and indeed celibacy. These are all central to the ‘life of perfection’-- the religious life, called the life of perfection because it is objectively ordered toward Christian holiness.

But the Christian gives these up as lesser goods, not as evils. The heretics give these up but they have only “an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion” because they do not arise from the virtue of charity and slander the one true Creator God by counting His own creation as evil. But the Christian who takes up these practices will, like Jesus Christ, walk far on the path of charity.

-Rob

 

[stuart12]

The only sure path to union with God is the love of Jesus Christ. All subordinate ways and means-- fasting and discipline-- must be subsumed by and ordered toward charity, without which it is empty (see 1 Corinthians 13 on this very point!).

The heretics of every age have always had a false rigor about them. In the 1200s St. Dominic came upon some Albigensian heretics who were far more rigorous than the Catholics themselves were. The problem was that their theology was shot through with a hatred for creation which viewed material things as evil. They abstained not because they loved but because they hated. The Church does not direct us to abstain from material things because they are evil. Rather, they are good, and the Church exhorts us to abstain for the sake of something better.

The gnostic and dualist heretics abstained from food and sexual intercourse because they thought it would trap souls in matter-- and they wrongly thought that ‘salvation’ was the freeing of souls from matter. The Christian knows that food and sexual intercourse are very good things, but abstains from them, perhaps, to show that God has created us as more than just beings who can attain to material goods. We are rational, spiritual beings within whom God Himself may tabernacle.

Thus Jesus says that, if you wish to be perfect, sell what you have and come follow me (Matthew 19:21). Jesus says that when the Bridegroom is gone, then his disciples will fast (Matthew 9:15). Jesus says that there are those who give us marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven-- and that those who can do this, ought to do this! (Matthew 19:12). Jesus gives a place to voluntary poverty for the gospel, fasting, and indeed celibacy. These are all central to the ‘life of perfection’-- the religious life, called the life of perfection because it is objectively ordered toward Christian holiness.

But the Christian gives these up as lesser goods, not as evils. The heretics give these up but they have only “an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion” because they do not arise from the virtue of charity and slander the one true Creator God by counting His own creation as evil. But the Christian who takes up these practices will, like Jesus Christ, walk far on the path of charity.

-Rob

Good answer. Also, Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae, regarding the question whether virginity is lawful as God told men to ‘go forth and multiply’ responds that there are three types of goods. External goods, such as riches. Bodily goods such as health, pleasures and the like. Finally, there are spiritual goods, such as contemplation, which is the greatest of all goods. The first two can be given up, not because their are unlawful in themselves (they are essentially good, but they need to be directed for their intended purpose), but for a fuller appreciation of the higher goods, and to give more focus to them. Union with Christ is the aim of the Christian life.

 

[RobNY]

Good answer. Also, Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae, regarding the question whether virginity is lawful as God told men to ‘go forth and multiply’ responds that there are three types of goods. External goods, such as riches. Bodily goods such as health, pleasures and the like. Finally, there are spiritual goods, such as contemplation, which is the greatest of all goods. The first two can be given up, not because their are unlawful in themselves (they are essentially good, but they need to be directed for their intended purpose), but for a fuller appreciation of the higher goods, and to give more focus to them. Union with Christ is the aim of the Christian life.

Funny enough, St. Thomas quotes Colossians just after where we’ve been reading. He asks whether perfection consists in charity and says:

It is written (Colossians 3:14): “Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection,” because it binds, as it were, all the other virtues together in perfect unity.

I answer that, A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is charity that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since “he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in charity.

St. Thomas always analyzes merit as having charity at its basis. It’s good that Colossians 3:14 is there, because it does give a good interpretative key for Colossians 2:20-23 as I said before.

This is a very good passage from the Summa.

I answer that, The religious state may be considered in three ways. First, as being a practice of tending to the perfection of charity: secondly, as quieting the human mind from outward solicitude, according to (1 Corinthians 7:3)2: “I would have you to be without solicitude”: thirdly, as a holocaust whereby a man offers himself and his possessions wholly to God; and in corresponding manner the religious state is constituted by these three vows.

First, as regards the practice of perfection a man is required to remove from himself whatever may hinder his affections from tending wholly to God, for it is in this that the perfection of charity consists. Such hindrances are of three kinds. First, the attachment to external goods, which is removed by the vow of poverty; secondly, the concupiscence of sensible pleasures, chief among which are venereal pleasures, and these are removed by the vow of continence; thirdly, the inordinateness of the human will, and this is removed by the vow of obedience. On like manner the disquiet of worldly solicitude is aroused in man in reference especially to three things. First, as regards the dispensing of external things, and this solicitude is removed from man by the vow of poverty; secondly, as regards the control of wife and children, which is cut away by the vow of continence; thirdly, as regards the disposal of one’s own actions, which is eliminated by the vow of obedience, whereby a man commits himself to the disposal of another.

Again, “a holocaust is the offering to God of all that one has,” according to Gregory (Hom. xx in Ezech.). Now man has a threefold good, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 8). First, the good of external things, which he wholly offers to God by the vow of voluntary poverty: secondly, the good of his own body, and this good he offers to God especially by the vow of continence, whereby he renounces the greatest bodily pleasures. the third is the good of the soul, which man wholly offers to God by the vow of obedience, whereby he offers God his own will by which he makes use of all the powers and habits of the soul. Therefore the religious state is fittingly constituted by the three vows.