Chapter 1: Fragments #

On Excommunication, Gildas writes: #

¹ Noah did not exclude his son Ham, the practitioner of magic, from the ark or from sharing his table. Abraham did not withdraw from Aner and Eschol when fighting against the five kings. Lot did not refuse the banquets of the Sodomites, despite their wickedness. Isaac did not hesitate to share a meal with Abimelech, Acarath, and Phicol, the commander of the army; after they ate and drank together, they made a covenant of peace. Jacob was not afraid to maintain communion with his sons, even though he knew they worshipped idols. Joseph did not refuse to dine and drink with Pharaoh, despite the Egyptian king’s pagan beliefs. Aaron did not reject the hospitality of Jethro, the priest of Midian, who served foreign gods. Moses likewise accepted Jethro’s offer of food and hospitality, embracing peaceful fellowship. Most importantly, our Lord Jesus Christ did not avoid the company of tax collectors and sinners. Instead, He sat at their feasts, seeking to save all—sinners and prostitutes alike.

On Abstinence from Foods, Gildas writes: #

¹ Abstaining from fleshly foods without love is worthless. It is better, then, to fast quietly, without show, and not to reject in excess what God has created, but instead to focus on keeping a pure heart—for from the heart flows the wellspring of life. Far better are those who, with humility, guard their inner purity than those who refuse to eat meat or who indulge in luxurious foods, yet consider themselves superior because of their outward practices. Whether they abstain from riding in carriages or on horseback, such external displays are of no true value. For in these people, death enters through the windows of pride.

On the Last Days, Gildas writes in his letter: #

¹ “Understand this: there will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power”. Many will be destroyed by their own evil, as the Apostle writes: “They have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness”. These people will criticize their fellow believers who do not follow their self-made doctrines and practices. Though they measure their bread carefully, they boast of their meager diet with boundless pride. They drink only water, but their hearts are filled with hatred. They dine on dry, bland food while slandering others with their tongues. Even as they keep long vigils, they scorn those who sleep peacefully, saying, as if addressing the limbs of the body: “If you are not the head, as I am, you are worthless.” Such arrogance arises not from love but from disdain, as they fixate on their own imagined principles. They prefer servants to masters, the lowly to the noble, base metal to gold, iron to silver, and the support beam to the vine it holds. Likewise, they esteem fasting over love, vigils over righteousness, and their own interpretations over the harmony of the Gospel. They choose the isolation of their cells over the fellowship of the Church, harshness over humility—ultimately valuing their own judgment over God’s will. These people are not led by the Gospel, but by their own desires; not by the Apostle’s teaching, but by their own pride. They fail to recognize that just as the stars in heaven differ in brilliance, and the angels have varying ranks, so too do the virtues differ in worth. Fasting alone, without the pursuit of other virtues, is of no benefit. In contrast, those taught by God follow the way of love with all their hearts, for “love is the fulfillment of the law”. The harps of the Holy Spirit proclaim: “All our righteous acts are like filthy rags”. But these self-righteous men, instruments of the devil, say to those who may well be holier than they—whose angels behold the face of the Father—“Stay away from us, for you are unclean.” To such arrogance, the Lord replies: “These are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day”. It is not the contemptuous who will inherit the kingdom, but those whom the Lord calls blessed: Not the proud poor, but the meek. Not the envious, but those who weep over their own sins and the sins of others. Not those who thirst for water in self-righteous superiority, but those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Not those who despise others, but the merciful. Not those with proud hearts, but those who are pure in heart. Not the severe and pitiless, but the peacemakers. Not those who wage war, but those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake. These are the ones who will surely inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Regarding Monks, Gildas says: #

¹ When monks come to you from a lesser monastery seeking refuge in a more virtuous one—especially if their abbot has strayed so far from God’s work that he is no longer fit to sit at the table of the saints, but rather deserves to be charged with the crime of fornication, not merely by suspicion but by clear evidence of evil—receive these monks without hesitation. Treat them as men fleeing the fires of hell, and do not consult their abbot on the matter. However, if a monk comes from a monastery whose abbot is not excluded from the table of the saints due to scandal or wrongdoing, you should not receive him against his abbot’s will. All the more so, you must refrain from welcoming monks who come from holy abbots, who are without reproach except for possessing cattle or carriages—whether due to the customs of their region or their own physical weakness. Such possessions, when held with humility and patience, do less spiritual harm to their owners than to those who plow the fields or drive the mattock into the earth with arrogance and pride. When a ship is wrecked, let anyone who can swim, swim. Whatever excess of worldly goods a monk possesses should be seen as luxury and wealth. However, if he is forced by necessity—rather than by choice—to own certain things to avoid falling into destitution, this will not be counted against him as sinful. For just as the primary adornments of the body, such as those belonging to the head, should not look down on the lesser parts, neither should the hands, which serve with constant usefulness, regard the higher parts with arrogance. After all, neither these nor those (the head nor the hands) can say to each other, “We have no need of you,” since both are necessary for the well-being of the same body. I say this so that bishops may understand that just as the lower clergy should not look down on them, they themselves should not despise the clergy. Just as the head should not scorn the other members of the body, so bishops ought not to hold the lower clergy in contempt.

Gildas says: #

¹ An abbot who follows a stricter rule should not admit a monk from a more lenient abbot. Likewise, an abbot with a more relaxed rule should not prevent his monk from seeking a stricter way of life if he feels called to it. For priests and bishops, their true and fearsome judge is God, who alone has the authority to judge them—in this world and the next—not we.

Gildas: #

¹ Cursed is the one who moves boundary stones, especially those of his neighbor. Let each person remain in the calling in which they were called by God, so that neither should a leader be removed from their position except by the will of those under their authority, nor should one in a subordinate role seek to usurp the place of a superior, except with the counsel and approval of their elders. What is considered honorable among us, we should surround with even greater honor. Therefore, it is fitting and beneficial for bishops and abbots to exercise proper judgment over those entrusted to their care. For if they fail to rule them well, the Lord will hold them accountable for their blood. Let those who disobey their spiritual fathers be treated as the Gentiles and tax collectors. As for the treatment of others, whether good or bad, whether subject to them or not, the words of the apostle apply: “Count all men” (as brethren, treating them with love and justice). Finally, the unpredictable nature of salvation is revealed in Scripture: we read of an apostle lost through greed, while a thief, through his confession, was carried into heaven.

² It is better for co-bishops, co-abbots, and fellow members of the community not to sit in judgment over one another. When dealing with those whose reputation carries the stench of evil, others should refrain from openly declaring their suspicions based on hearsay. Instead, they should rebuke such individuals gently and with patience. As much as their conscience allows, they ought to avoid these individuals as persons under suspicion—yet without formally excommunicating them or excluding them from their table or from communion in the Church. However, if necessity, a prior agreement, or a public occasion requires interaction, they may engage with them. Let them admonish such people, making it clear that their conduct is not right, while refraining from issuing final condemnation, since they lack the authority to judge them. When these individuals partake of communion unworthily, it is possible that by our own sinful thoughts, we might unknowingly be participating with demons. However, those whom we know with certainty to be fornicators, unless they repent through the proper process of penance, must be excluded from both communion and table fellowship, regardless of their ecclesiastical rank or order. As it is written: “If anyone who bears the name of brother is guilty of sexual immorality… do not even eat with such a one”. Exclusion from the altar and from table fellowship should only occur in cases of clearly proven, grave sins. No other reason justifies such separation, and it should only be enforced when the circumstances truly require it.

Gildas: #

¹ A wise person recognizes the light of truth, no matter whose mouth speaks it.

Gildas: #

¹ Miriam was struck with leprosy because she joined Aaron in criticizing Moses over his Ethiopian wife. We should take this as a warning, lest we fall into the sin of disparaging good leaders over minor or indifferent faults.

Chapter 2: Doubtful Fragments #

Gildas says: #

¹ The Britons stand in opposition to the rest of the world, rejecting Roman customs—not only in the celebration of the Mass but also in their tonsure. Like the Jews, they cling to the shadows of things to come rather than embracing the truth.

The Romans say: #

¹ The tradition of the British tonsure originated with Simon Magus, whose hair was shaved only from ear to ear, imitating the style of sorcerers, who customarily covered only the front part of their forehead. They further assert that the first to introduce this tonsure in Ireland was a swineherd of King Loegaire mac Neill, as attested by the words of Saint Patrick. From this swineherd, nearly all the Irish adopted the same tonsure.