Fraticelli Heresy?

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Hello everyone, recently I have read upon Fraticelli- they were those groups coming from Franciscans who would try to enforce poverty upon the Church, and some would hold that if clergyman does not live in poverty, it invalidates his status. Now, if they did understand “invalidating status” as in “loses sacrament of holy orders”, I understand why they are heresy. However, from the context it seemed as if they thought “invalidating status” meant losing bishopric, parish or said means of someone’s authority in the Church.

If second explanation is valid, they would be considered schismatics rather than heretics, right? Does anyone know exactly of what heresy/false teachings were they accused (or actually held)?

 

[Genesis315]

They denied that the Church could own property and claimed the Apostles and Christ owned nothing and, as a related point, said the Franciscan rule was the Gospel pure and simple and therefore could not be amended.

See here John XXII’s condemnations of their errors here:

With regard to owning property:
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qinn-e.html

With regard to the rule:

Quia quorundam - Papal Encyclicals

As a result of these two documents and two others on the same topics, they claimed John XXII was the heretic for opposing their doctrines, and had himself forfeited the papacy as a result.

There were also more extreme off-shoots, like the Spirituals who added additional heresies, like priests in the state of sin not being able to confer the sacraments. Even more extreme versions of them even claimed St. Francis as the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Thank you! That was very helpful