Peter Waldo and St. Francis of Assisi

[JustaServant]

Two evangelical Catholic movements of the high middle ages, the Waldensians and Franciscans, illustrate well these contrasting responses to obedience. When the Archbishop of Lyons forbade Peter Waldo and his followers to preach, Peter appealed to the Pope, who gave him and his followers permission to preach, but only in the dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop.
When this restriction appeared too hampering, the Waldensians, in their zeal, disregarded it, believing they ought to obey God rather than man, and were eventually excommunicated.
St. Francis likewise went to Rome and humbly submitted himself to the Pope, who had a dream the very night before his arrival in which Christ told him that it was through St. Francis that He was going to rebuild the Church. The Pope gave him permission but with the same caveat that he and his followers could only preach in dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop. St. Francis obeyed the injunction, trusting that God would guide him and his brothers through this directive.
Together they went on to renew the medieval church, and his influence is still strong today. For him, obeying legitimately exercised God-ordained authority was obeying God.

 

[Contarini]

Two evangelical Catholic movements of the high middle ages, the Waldensians and Franciscans, illustrate well these contrasting responses to obedience. When the Archbishop of Lyons forbade Peter Waldo and his followers to preach, Peter appealed to the Pope, who gave him and his followers permission to preach, but only in the dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop.
When this restriction appeared too hampering, the Waldensians, in their zeal, disregarded it, believing they ought to obey God rather than man, and were eventually excommunicated.
St. Francis likewise went to Rome and humbly submitted himself to the Pope, who had a dream the very night before his arrival in which Christ told him that it was through St. Francis that He was going to rebuild the Church. The Pope gave him permission but with the same caveat that he and his followers could only preach in dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop. St. Francis obeyed the injunction, trusting that God would guide him and his brothers through this directive.
Together they went on to renew the medieval church, and his influence is still strong today. For him, obeying legitimately exercised God-ordained authority was obeying God.

This is not entirely accurate, and is unfair to Waldo. Waldo returned to union with the Catholic Church by the end of his life, and some of his followers followed him back. According to Gabriel Audisio, one of the leading scholars of Waldensianism, the split between the Waldenses and the Church was a gradual one.

Also, we don’t know what St. Francis would have done if the bishop and/or the Pope had simply forbidden him to preach. I think he very likely would have submitted, but it’s unfair to draw the contrast only between Francis and Waldo and not between the relevant ecclesiastical authorities in the two cases.

Of Waldo it was definitely true, as many assert more dubiously about Luther, that he did not leave the Catholic Church of his own accord–and this is shown by the fact that he returned!

I honor both Waldo and St. Francis.

Edwin

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Waldo returned to union with the Catholic Church by the end of his life, and some of his followers followed him back.

This is very interesting, if true. In my (Protestant) educational background, he and his followers were always presented as proto-Reformation heroes, but the textbooks that we used never mentioned anything about him later reconciling with Rome.

 

[JustaServant]

One of the reasons it is claimed that the Church persecuted the Waldensians was that they were jealous of their humility and put the catholic priests to shame. This of course only causes one to wonder why they didn’t persecute the Franciscans as well.
But the real lesson here is one of humility and obedience to the Church. Both got the same response from the Pope. But it was Waldo who revolted only when Rome decided that a theologically uneducated layman could not, without Church review, accurately preach the gospel without oversight.
Francis went on to become a Saint, Waldo fell into error.
Interestingly, the Waldensians themselves created a similar hierarchy to the Church’s (bishops, priests, deacons).
Even more interestingly, there is today an order in the Church called the Catholic Poor that came from Waldensians who were convinced of their error and returned to the Church, and practiced the same vocation as Waldo, but without the schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

For him, obeying legitimately exercised God-ordained authority was obeying God.

Many Catholics are sorely missing this today.

 

[Contarini]

One of the reasons it is claimed that the Church persecuted the Waldensians was that they were jealous of their humility and put the catholic priests to shame. This of course only causes one to wonder why they didn’t persecute the Franciscans as well.
But the real lesson here is one of humility and obedience to the Church. Both got the same response from the Pope. But it was Waldo who revolted only when Rome decided that a theologically uneducated layman could not, without Church review, accurately preach the gospel without oversight.
Francis went on to become a Saint, Waldo fell into error.
Interestingly, the Waldensians themselves created a similar hierarchy to the Church’s (bishops, priests, deacons).
Even more interestingly, there is today an order in the Church called the Catholic Poor that came from Waldensians who were convinced of their error and returned to the Church, and practiced the same vocation as Waldo, but without the schism.

They still exist? I thought they died out.

Also, as I said, I believe that Waldo actually returned to the Church. Your account is too cut-and-dried. The reality was a bit messier. For one thing, where’s the record that the Church offered “oversight”?

Waldo saw a spiritual need that wasn’t being filled. The Church refused to let him fill it. I am not going to say that he was wrong

 

[JReducation]

I believe the point that JustaServant is trying to point to is the difference between the Waldensian and the Franciscan movements and why the one has survived 800 years and today is the largest religious family in the world with 1.7 million brothers and sisters. The reason is obedience.

To understand the difference between the two movements, one must understand that differences between the two men. Waldo was out to convert the Church or to save her from herself. Our Holy Father Francis only wanted permission to live the Gospel and to teach others how to live it, if they wanted to learn from him. Francis did not impose his preaching on anyone.

There is a passage in our Holy Rules (Francis wrote three, one for each of the orders that he founded), the passage repeats itself in all three rules. “The Brethren shall not preach in any place where they are not authorized to preach by the local bishop.”

In another passage he wrote, “Brother Francis is bound to obey the Lord Pope in all things and the brethren are to obey Brother Francis and his successors.”

In the manner in which the brethren are to be received into the order, Francis wrote, “the brethren are to be received to Obedience.” Notice the title is obedience, not poverty as many would like to think. Francis was poor, because Christ commanded that we leave everything and follow him. This is what it means to preach the Gospel. It is to preach it by following it.

Finally, “Even when the brethren believe authority to be mistaken, they are ordered to obey, because such obedience is pleasing to God and man. Let the brethren be free to disregard a command given by a superior only when it is sinful. Let them offer up the sacrifice of obedience as a penance.”

The difference between these two men is obedience. For Francis of Assisi, obedience flows from Lady Poverty. He who practices the poverty of Christ and his mother, surrenders his will, not just his material goods. Again, the Gospel is preached by becoming, not by public speaking. He who becomes like Christ preaches the loudest. He who speaks the loudest about Christ is less like him, for Christ never commanded attention. He simply made friends and spoke to his friends about the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, to this day, the sons and daughters of St. Francis do not preach or minister in any diocese without the permission of the local bishop. Francis was asked to stop preaching in a number of dioceses, because the bishop did not like him. Francis simply stopped, asked for the bishop’s forgiveness and proceeded to ask the bishop what he should do.

Recently, a bishop told a friar that he could not celebrate a mass that he had scheduled. The laity was in an uproar; but the friar, though he was disappointed, did not join the chorus of the laity. He simply did not celebrate the mass.

Padre Pio’s Minister Provincial commanded him not to celebrate mass in public. He was to celebrate it in the conventual chapel only. Padre Pio smiled and said, “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

When I finished my doctorate in theology I asked my superior for permission to be ordained a priest. He denied it on the grounds that it was not the will of Christ that I serve the Church as priest, but as a formator of priests. I was to go to the house of formation to teach theology.

Later in life, I was told that I was not to teach theology, but I was to go to another city and start a ministry to post-abortive fathers.

Waldo and Francis were very different kinds of evangelists. Waldo wanted to convert others. Francis wanted to unify the spirituality of Paul and John. Paul teaches us to conform to Christ in all things and John teaches us to abide in his love. For Francis, Evangelization was not about converting anyone. It was about living the Gospel. Living the Gospel requires that we embrace the tension between doing what it takes to become like Christ and doing nothing in order to allow Christ’s love to absorb us.

Words are very important. It’s important to note how Francis commanded his brothers and sisters to view the pope and the bishops. They are to be our Lords and Masters. In the constitution of the Franciscans of the Renewal the bishop is referred to as “Our Benevolent Bishop”. In my community’s constitution he is Our Lord Bishop. In other Franciscan communities they have similar modifiers. The bishop is held in high esteem, regardless of his personal qualities. Waldo had problems with this. In his mind, bishops had to earn his respect. In Francis’ mind, bishops had the right to command his respect, because they were the successors of the Apostles. They had nothing to earn. It had been given to them through Apostolic Succession. It was the duty of the People of God to gather around the bishops just as the first generation Christians gathered around the Apostles, in the Acts of the Apostles.

As you can see, Francis evangelized by taking the Gospel as his rule of life. Wherever he and his family go, we simply say nothing. The way that we live and obey should be enough to tell the story of the Incarnation and Redemption.

Waldo, like many people today, wanted to identify everone who was in error and force them to listen until they submitted. Francis simply became friends with non-believers and lived among them according to the Gospel. When they wanted to listen, he would speak. When they did not want to listen, he would pray with them. If they did not want to pray, he simply worked alongside them as their brother. He taught his sons and daughters to evangelize by becoming living Gospel Books.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contarini]

I believe the point that JustaServant is trying to point to is the difference between the Waldensian and the Franciscan movements and why the one has survived 800 years and today is the largest religious family in the world with 1.7 million brothers and sisters. The reason is obedience.

To understand the difference between the two movements, one must understand that differences between the two men. Waldo was out to convert the Church or to save her from herself. Our Holy Father Francis only wanted permission to live the Gospel and to teach others how to live it, if they wanted to learn from him. . . .

Waldo, like many people today, wanted to identify everone who was in error and force them to listen until they submitted.

On what sources are you basing this description of Waldo? He’s a fairly elusive figure.

I take the point that he was willing to go against his local bishop. However, as I pointed out earlier, in fact the local bishop and the Pope approved of what Francis was doing. So it’s only fair to accompany the contrast of Francis and Waldo by a contrast between the respective ecclesiastical authorities.

Edwin

 

[JReducation]

On what sources are you basing this description of Waldo? He’s a fairly elusive figure.

I take the point that he was willing to go against his local bishop. However, as I pointed out earlier, in fact the local bishop and the Pope approved of what Francis was doing. So it’s only fair to accompany the contrast of Francis and Waldo by a contrast between the respective ecclesiastical authorities.

Edwin

The bold is mine.

Often the best testimony of a man’s work is found in his posterity. Just as God promised Abram that he would make him the Father of the Nations, Francis also had a vision and so did Pope Innocent III. The two visions are like interlocking pieces of a puzzle.

Innocent, before he ever met Francis, dreamed that Francis had held up the Church, like a giant leaning against the Laten to support it. Francis had a vision in which Christ showed him millions of sons and daughters who would follow him and in that vision, Christ said to him, “The earthy will be flooded with your sons and daughtes until my return.”

In April 2009, the Franciscan family celebrated its 800th anniversay since it’s canonical approval. We were actually born in 1207. By the time Francis died, there were over 15,000 brothers and sisters throughout Europe, in the Middle East and North Africa. That was in the year 1226. Between 1209 and 1226 the Franciscan movement grew from 11 brothers to 15,000 brothers and sisters in 12 countries and three continents. Today, we are 1.7 million in 141 countries, speaking 48 languages. If each century produces 500,000 of us and we go back eight centuries, how many millions is that?

Where, on the other hand, is Waldo’s legacy? What we have left of Waldo are fragmented groups who cannot agree on his teaching and mission.

The scriptures remind us that the first sign of God’s predilection is oneness. God chose one people and kept them united, despite the fact that they were 12 tribes and two kingdoms, but they shared one faith. There was one Logos, even though he had two distinct natures. There was one Church, even though it is comprised of 22 sui iuris Churches, but they profess the same faith and submit to the authority of Peter. The sons and daughters of Francis follow one rulle of life, live one common mission, profess obedience to one father and one Gospel, even though we are in different nations working in different apostolic works.

While Francis’ evangelical movement mirrors the unity of Salvation History, Waldo’s movement is fragmented and often in competition with itself.

Your second point is in error. The local bishop did not always approve what Francis was doing. The reason that Francis went to Pope Innocent was precisely because Bishop Guido would not approve his way of life. Bishop Guido told Francis that his way of life and his preaching sounded too much like the Waldensians and the could not approve of his ministry. However, he would do so, if Pope Innocent approved.

After Pope Innocent approved the Rule, other bishops still disapproved and prohibitted the Franciscan movement in their dioceses. Francis was not allowed to preach in many dioceses in Europe. That came over a period of 17-years. He had to earn the trust of the bishops. The way that he earned their trust was by submitting to their will.

Thomas of Celano, one of Francis’ first companions drew a comparison between Waldo and Francis in his letter to the Minister General, Brother Bonaventure. Thomas pointed out that on one occasion, the bishop of a certain diocese referred to Francis and his brothers as swine and ordered them to sleep in the pig-pen and “share their table.” Francis left the bishop’s presence. Taking the two brothers who were with him, he went to the pig-pen, ate from their food and slept with the swine and commanded the two brothers who were with him to do the same under threat of excommunication should they refuse to obey the bishop.

On another occasion, the new bisohp of Assisi commanded the brothers. The Vicar General, Brother Elias disobeyed, because he felt that the bishop was abusing his power. When Francis returned, he commanded Elias to obey the bishop. Elias argued that hte bishop was wrong. Francis presented a petition of excommunication to the Holy See. Br. Elias was excommunicated for disobeying the bishop and Francis. He was not received into the Church and the order until he recanted. Elias eventually became the Minister General and died a very holy death.

It is not true that Francis was the fair haired boy of the popes and bishops while Waldo was not. Francis was often held under the microscope by those who did not know or did not believe what Christ has communicated to Innocent and to Francis. Remember, these were private revelations. Therefore, they are worthy of belief, but not binding on the faithful. Many bishops did not assent to them. It took until Francis’ death for him to win the favor of most of them. Some opposed his canonization. Pope Gregory IX canonized him over their objections. It was either the first or the second canonization to take place Ex Cathedra.

As Bonaventure and Celano tell us, it was Francis’ obedience that gained for him the love, respect and approval of the Church. It was his obedience that gained for him the titles of Saint, The Mirror of Perfection, The Most Christian Man and seven papal encyclicals about him. And it was his obedience that Pope Benedict discussed when he blasted the Italian bishops less than six-months ago. For over 20 minutes he preached to them of Francis’ obedience to the Pontiff and of our obligation to follow this example.

We do not have such a legacy from Waldo.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Contarini]

The bold is mine.

Often the best testimony of a man’s work is found in his posterity.

As a historian, I can’t accept that principle, I’m afraid. This is a perfect formula for distorting the historical record. In matters of faith I’m willing to accept the principle–in other words, we have no religion of Christianity that is based simply on the historical Jesus. But when working as historians and making historical statements comparing two figures, we need to be able to speak strictly about what the historical figures in question did.

Your second point is in error. The local bishop did not always approve what Francis was doing. The reason that Francis went to Pope Innocent was precisely because Bishop Guido would not approve his way of life. Bishop Guido told Francis that his way of life and his preaching sounded too much like the Waldensians and the could not approve of his ministry. However, he would do so, if Pope Innocent approved.

That’s a good point. I don’t know if Waldo had a similar recourse or not. But I am not simply going to assume that he did.

Thomas of Celano, one of Francis’ first companions drew a comparison between Waldo and Francis in his letter to the Minister General, Brother Bonaventure.

Well, my suspicious historian’s brain tells me that this is a “smoking gun” indicating that, as you said above, many people saw similarities, and that Thomas is very strongly invested in refuting these similarities.

Thomas pointed out that on one occasion, the bishop of a certain diocese referred to Francis and his brothers as swine and ordered them to sleep in the pig-pen and “share their table.” Francis left the bishop’s presence. Taking the two brothers who were with him, he went to the pig-pen, ate from their food and slept with the swine and commanded the two brothers who were with him to do the same under threat of excommunication should they refuse to obey the bishop.

That’s a great story–again, one way of reading it is that St. Francis was using humility as a weapon to put the bishop in the wrong. I would not endorse this in a cynical sense-- I am certainly not disputing that his humility was genuine. But at the same time, it was certainly also an effective way of trumping opponents within the hierarchy.

It is not true that Francis was the fair haired boy of the popes and bishops while Waldo was not.

That’s a valid point, and I apologize for giving that impression. I should rephrase my point: I’m simply trying to suggest that we should not draw a contrast only between Waldo and Francis, while ignoring differences in hierarchical attitudes between the two. Yes, Francis faced opposition, but he was in the end successful in gaining support for his order from the hierarchy. He never had to choose between obedience or giving up his ministry. I’m not claiming that he would have failed to obey in those circumstances, only that from a historical point of view we really have no way of knowing.

Also, while I know that this is an unwelcome intrusion of historical skepticism, I need to point out that much of what we know about Francis is based on hagiography with a very strong agenda of showing his loyalty to the Roman See and the Church generally, precisely because the comparisons with Waldo were so obvious.

Edwin

 

[JReducation]

As a historian, I can’t accept that principle, I’m afraid. This is a perfect formula for distorting the historical record. In matters of faith I’m willing to accept the principle–in other words, we have no religion of Christianity that is based simply on the historical Jesus. But when working as historians and making historical statements comparing two figures, we need to be able to speak strictly about what the historical figures in question did.

We know that one was very obedient and the other disobedient and at times defiant.

Well, my suspicious historian’s brain tells me that this is a “smoking gun” indicating that, as you said above, many people saw similarities, and that Thomas is very strongly invested in refuting these similarities.

Of course there were similarities, just as there were similarities between Jesus and the hundreds of other messiahs. The Evangelists had to ensure that the differences were pointed out. This is what the early biographers did. They did the same thing as the Evangelists. They pointed to the differences between Francis and Waldo and others.

That’s a great story–again, one way of reading it is that St. Francis was using humility as a weapon to put the bishop in the wrong. I would not endorse this in a cynical sense-- I am certainly not disputing that his humility was genuine. But at the same time, it was certainly also an effective way of trumping opponents within the hierarchy.

It can be interpreted as putting the bishop in his place were it not for the fact that Francis asked for the excommunication of any of his brothers who disobeyed any bishop. This included the Vicar General of the Order. It is much more consistent with Francis’ devotion to the bishops, while recognizing that they were sinful human beings. But he also realized that no one has the right to disobey them, even when they were wrong. He writes this into his admonitions and proceeds to seek excommunication and ecclesial penalties against member of his own community.

He never had to choose between obedience or giving up his ministry. I’m not claiming that he would have failed to obey in those circumstances, only that from a historical point of view we really have no way of knowing.

Actually we do. Francis set out to be a missionary. On one occasion, he made it to Egypt. He betrayed the Crusades. He was commanded never to go on mission again. He obeyed, even though he very much wanted to go.

He was ordered by the General Chapter to rewrite the rule in 1223, even though he was the founder and the Superior General. The Chapter ordered him, under obedience to rewrite the rule and to make it less scriptural and put more legislation into it. This was very hard for him, because he felt that Christ wanted a rule based solely on the Gosepl, without human commentary. Now the General Chapter was odering him to do something different from what Christ had asked him to do. He conceded based on the belief that obedience was Christ’s most beloved virtue.

Also, while I know that this is an unwelcome intrusion of historical skepticism, I need to point out that much of what we know about Francis is based on hagiography with a very strong agenda of showing his loyalty to the Roman See and the Church generally, precisely because the comparisons with Waldo were so obvious.

Again, it was necessary to prove that he was not a heretic. But the point is that they did prove it. They gave real examples, to which there were witnesses, that proved that Francis was in full communion with the 22 Catholic Churches, not just the Roman Church by the way. He also had sons and daughters among the Oriental Catholics in union with Rome. The best example that they were able to give of his loyalty is in his rule and in his testament.

In both documents he commands obedience to the Roman Pontiff under pain of eternal damnation. No one wrote this into the rule and the Testament. He wrote it. He took this fidelity as a matter of spiritual life and death.

There is another letter in which some of the Waldensians ask to be admitted to the Franciscan family and Francis orders them to reconcile with the local bishop and then come back to him. He would not accept anyone who was in conflict with a bishop.

By the way, there is nothing wrong or un-academic in hagiography. It’s a legitimate historical and theological tool.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DebChris]

I do not know enough about Waldo to speak about his actions or return to the Catholic Faith.
About two weeks ago, our pastor mentioned how an individual holding prayer meetings in a local did not have the bishop’s permission and called on parishioners to remain obedient.
St. Francis is credited with saying “Preach always and if necessary use words.” Even where preaching about Christ is limited, our actions continue to speak. In other words, while we may not be able to use words, people see our actions. It is our life that often draws others to Christ. The opposite can also be true. This is Christian unity week. An ecumenical service was held Saturday evening after Mass. The continued divisions within God’s Church provide scandal. Our obedience to authority, when not contrary to conscience, is obedience to God.

 

[Esdra]

I believe the point that JustaServant is trying to point to is the difference between the Waldensian and the Franciscan movements and why the one has survived 800 years and today is the largest religious family in the world with 1.7 million brothers and sisters. The reason is obedience.

To understand the difference between the two movements, one must understand that differences between the two men. Waldo was out to convert the Church or to save her from herself. Our Holy Father Francis only wanted permission to live the Gospel and to teach others how to live it, if they wanted to learn from him. Francis did not impose his preaching on anyone.

There is a passage in our Holy Rules (Francis wrote three, one for each of the orders that he founded), the passage repeats itself in all three rules. “The Brethren shall not preach in any place where they are not authorized to preach by the local bishop.”
…]

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, that’s really a great post!
Thank you for sharing.
I am deeply impressed.
You know what? - I’ve always been honouring monks and nuns from deep of my heart and still do so, although I am not really Catholic anymore.
I’m still dreaming of going to a monastery once for some time.

Peace,

 

[LaymanX]

We know that one was very obedient and the other disobedient and at times defiant.

He was ordered by the General Chapter to rewrite the rule in 1223, even though he was the founder and the Superior General. The Chapter ordered him, under obedience to rewrite the rule and to make it less scriptural and put more legislation into it. This was very hard for him, because he felt that Christ wanted a rule based solely on the Gosepl, without human commentary. Now the General Chapter was odering him to do something different from what Christ had asked him to do. He conceded based on the belief that obedience was Christ’s most beloved virtue.

Sorry for intruding at such a late juncture in the conversation, but it seems to me that both St Francis and Brother Waldo valued Obedience. In addition, both valued the spiritual competency of the layman and therefore, wished greater participation on their part. The difference lies in where one applies the virtue of Obedience ultimately given time constraints and human limitations. And this ultimately leads to where one should discern the voice of Christ? Obviously, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, they were both serving Christ and the Church and thus dead to the self (i.e., neither were seeking their own way).

The issue is really about Ecclesiology - the essence of the Church. The voice of Christ for one was the General Chapter and the voice of Christ for the other was the lay (not that St Francis did not “hear” the voice of the lay). Both recognized the leadership role of Bishop, but were at variance in their understanding of the leadership. To put it simply, how does the bishop represent the mind of the lay? And to what degree? Can we even separate the bishop from the lay or do they interpenetrate one another (cf. hypostatic union and perichoresis)? St Francis heard a louder voice of Christ coming from the office of the Bishop? Brother Waldo heard a louder voice of Christ coming from the cries of the lay. What would Jesus do in a similar situation? Seems like the issue is a bit over our heads to decide in a single thread. I would think the more prudent solution between these two children of God and servants of the Church would be to give both the benefit of the doubt and maintain ongoing dialogue. Obedience is nothing without patience and humility.

In Christ,

Francis

 

[JReducation]

Actually, this is not the way Francis thought at all and it would be unfaithful of his sons and daughters to allow others to believe that he thought this way. Francis’ ecclesiology was based on solid Patristic ecclesiology. It was grounded in the teachings of Clement of Rome, the third successor of Peter who made it very clear that the Church is hierarchical with what he called a Laos (laity) and Episcopos (bishop) led by the Bishop of Rome. He clarified, once and for all, for the Catholic Church, that there is a difference between the hierarchy and the laity. They are not opposed to each other. However, the two do not share the same authority. The voice of the bishops is always authoritative. Clement made this very clear in his writings. This was taken up by his successors and by succeeding councils and agreed that Christ has built his Church on the confession of Peter and the college of the Apostles.

While it is true that the laity forms part of the People of God, it was not the teaching of the Fathers that the laity led the Church. In other words, the Church was not a populist movement.

Francis understood this very well. For this reason, he acknowledges the authority of the bishop over the voice of the laity, regardless of the bishop’s moral character. The ontological change produced through the ordination of a bishop cannot be ignored or undone. A bishop remains the highest authority in any diocese, because only a validly ordained bishop is the lawful successor of the Apostles. Francis went one step further than many men and women of his time. The Orthodox Christians were separating from Rome. While Francis did not approve the schism, he did acknowledge that even these schismatic bishops were successors of the Apostles and had full authority in their dioceses. Since they were not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the brothers were not to serve in these dioceses, even if invited to do so. Francis understood that if the brothers were to serve in the diocese of an Orthodox bishop, that bishop had Apostolic Succession that was valid and licit. To avoid getting caught in the middle of the schism, the friars avoided those diocese involved in the schism.

While it is a noble gesture to want to equate the service rendered by Waldo and Francis to the Church, there are two major differences that have to be pointed out. First, you referred to Waldo as “Brother”. Waldo was never a consecrated religious nor a member of a canonical secular order. Therefore, that title may not be applied to him. However, that’s minor.

The second is much more important. Waldo may have returned to the Catholic Church, but he left behind him a very large movement of people who were excommunicated for heresy and he did nothing to bring them back into the fold of the Church and to bring them back into submission to legitimate Church authorities. Francis of Assisi did not set off a heretic movement. Yet, he did leave to the Church, the largest religious family in all religious history. What secured the fidelity of Francis’ family was the recognition of succession. The bishops succeeded the Apostles. The local superiors succeeded the superior general. The superior general succeeded the founder. The founder submitted to the authority of the pope and his bishops.

He not only said it, but he lived by what he said. He wrote in his rule that the superior must be a servant to his brothers. Therefore, when commanded to rewrite the rule, even though he had heard a different command from Christ, he submitted to the voice of the brothers, because Christ had revealed to him that he (the superior) must be the suffering servant, as Christ was the suffering servant. Unlike Waldo, Francis kept his sons and daughters united to the Church by leading them. He led through obedience.

I’m sorry, but I respectfully disagree that Waldo and Francis are of equal stature and made an equal contribution to the welfare of the Church. I also disagree that the two left an equal legacy. I don’t see Waldo’s legacy. What we see in Waldo, was a man who lost control of his followers, because they disobeyed him, just as he disobeyed his superiors.

Franciscan men and women still obey Francis because he earned their respect and love. He earned it by showing humility and obedience, even when it cost him very dearly. He trusted that God had a plan, even when it seemed that there was a contradiction between what he heard in his heart and mind and what the Church and his brothers commanded. Francis taught his sons and daughters that conscience must always be formed according to the mind of the Church or it’s an ill-formed conscience. It’s not just a matter of following one’s conscience. Francis taught that it’s a matter for forming conscience first, according to Church teaching, then following it. Even Protestants and non-Christians admire and respect Francis show of fidelity and obedience. They may not follow him, but they are in awe of him. I don’t see many people in awe of Waldo. I would not say that they made an equal contribution or did equal good for the Church. I do not judge Waldo’s soul. That’s for God to do. But his contribution falls short of that of Francis of Assisi.

One final thought, were it not for Francis of Assisi, we, Catholics and non-Catholics might not be having this exchange on this forum. Francis of Assisi introduced inter-faith dialogue and cooperation into the world and the Catholic Church. Centuries later we would call it, “ecumenism”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PbloPicasso]

Wow, that’s really a great post!
Thank you for sharing.
I am deeply impressed.
You know what? - I’ve always been honouring monks and nuns from deep of my heart and still do so, although I am not really Catholic anymore.
I’m still dreaming of going to a monastery once for some time.

Peace,

However, once like you, a Franciscan Friar is the one the helped me return home to the Catholic Church. He’s back in Pennsylvania now. My wife considers him her conversion priest. A wonderful man, only 5 years older than me. He exhibits the most astounding piety and humility from anyone I’ve ever known. And he’s not even my hero priest who is our pastor. Franciscan’s are wonderful. I’m glad I discovered them. I was more familiar with the Carmellites and Benedictines before learning more about the Franciscans and a slew of other holy orders of men and women.

 

[LaymanX]

What we see in Waldo, was a man who lost control of his followers, because they disobeyed him, just as he disobeyed his superiors.

First, if I implied the St Francis and brother Waldo (with lowercase ‘b’ as fellow Christian brother) contributed “equally” I apologize. I would prefer the term “differently” (as in a more of a complementarian sense). Second, with regards to the quote above, I think the same criticism could be applied to Waldo’s own superiors (i.e., they lost control of their followers, or worse, they bred such a community in which a person like Waldo had to come about). Of course, as St. Benedict reminds us, that, ultimately, only the Supreme Judge will make that final call (deciding between bad teacher vs. bad student) (cf. “Qualities of an Abbot” in the Rule of St. Benedict):

“The abbot must, therefore, be aware that the shepherd will bear the blame wherever the father of the household finds that the sheep have yielded no profit. …if he has faithfully shepherded … the shepherd will be acquitted at the Lord’s judgment.”

I agree that, as a general principle, one should obey all that ones superior instructs and leave the rest to the providence of God. This is why I would take the side of St. Francis if I were to die tomorrow and Waldo was the only other option. However, in regards to, placing judgment solelyon brother Waldo and his “followers” would do grave injustice to the situation and the ambiguity of the nature of the leadership of which he was a part. Could Waldo have even had the type of convictions he did without the situation he was born into? Surely, Waldo did act according to what he thought was best, given the situation, but his plausibility structure (lifeworld, language, conceptual frameworks) was given to him by the church and the leadership he grew up in. I do not think it is so easy to isolate the individual from the community (cf. intersubjectivity).

In so far as judging Waldo from history. We should be wary of the hubris of the present. Just because Waldo is not “well-known” today does not necessarily discount his place in history in the future. If I were to blame anyone, I would lean on the side of the leaders and the community for lacking the proper means of reconciliation with their spiritual children. Jesus always reached out to the lost sheep. The Father took on human form. Jesus washed his disciples feet. There is a certain kind of kenotic attitude which allows the sheep to recognize their shepherd as the voice of Christ. Perhaps the Church had could a mild flu during that season and spoke in a “cracked” voice.

Although this would be speculation, I would be inclined to suggest that St. Francis was lucky to have some good fellows and mentors who taught him about the nature of Obedience, leadership, and all that entails. In contrast, perhaps brother Waldo lived in a community with fellows and mentors who taught him an inadequate understanding of Obedience, leadership, and all that entails. The blame should most likely, given our human finitude and historicity, be placed on the Bishop, his community, and Waldo. And perhaps even go further up, and see this as a lack of kenotic attitude from the Pope himself. Luckily, things are not like that today as the “Personal Ordinariate” shows.

In His grace and service,

Francis

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St. Francis and Peter Valdes (" Waldo") had similar beginnings; both came from merchant families, although Italian St. Francis had a French Mother. Both embraced a life of poverty. What got Peter Valdes or the (“poor preachers” )Waldo in trouble with their bishops, was due to their preaching which undermined both Church and secular authorities in favor to the Church hierarchy, and who would display his poverty and preaching to criticize the rich.

The Fourth Lateran Council 1215 a.d condemned the Waldensians, Albigensians, and the doctrines of Joachim of Fiore who preached a therefold time frame of the Father, Son and the Spirit, which later some Fransicans took to preaching the coming age of the spirit which began to alienate them from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as did the Waldensians. The Fransicans under their new Minister General Bonaventure was able to bring back the order to a more profound piety and strict obedience to the hierarchy, which the Waldensians did not.

The simple difference between Peter Valdes a.k.a Waldo and St. Francis life of poverty is; St. Francis wanted to combat heresy by his way of living it out by example; Peter Waldo took it to another level by arguing his position by preaching and displaying his extreme poverty life.

I don’t find Peter Waldo ever returning to the Church (unless a poster can show historical evidence here?) but his followers escaping from secular and religious authority to the alps until the reformation and adopted new protestant reformed teachings. Maybe some Wandensians came back to the Catholic church after the decision of the Fourth Lateran council?

Two evangelical Catholic movements of the high middle ages, the Waldensians and Franciscans, illustrate well these contrasting responses to obedience. When the Archbishop of Lyons forbade Peter Waldo and his followers to preach, Peter appealed to the Pope, who gave him and his followers permission to preach, but only in the dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop.
When this restriction appeared too hampering, the Waldensians, in their zeal, disregarded it, believing they ought to obey God rather than man, and were eventually excommunicated.
St. Francis likewise went to Rome and humbly submitted himself to the Pope, who had a dream the very night before his arrival in which Christ told him that it was through St. Francis that He was going to rebuild the Church. The Pope gave him permission but with the same caveat that he and his followers could only preach in dioceses where they had the permission of the local bishop. St. Francis obeyed the injunction, trusting that God would guide him and his brothers through this directive.
Together they went on to renew the medieval church, and his influence is still strong today. For him, obeying legitimately exercised God-ordained authority was obeying God.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the bottom line here is that the attitude of the two men was very different, regardless of where they go their formation. Waldo wanted to reform the Church. Francis had no interest in doing so. Francis wanted to live the Gospel. He was aware of the need for reform, but he did not set himself up as a reformer. His point of view was that the call to holiness was to conform to Christ and to live in his Love, end of story. If he did that and those who wanted to follow him did that, the reform would come naturally.

There were a few friars, during the early years between Francis’ death and the generalate of Bonaventure who felt this call to reform the Church, as I call it, to fix the Church. Bonaventure set them straight by reminding them of Francis’ vision and mission.

To this day, the Franciscans do have a ministry in the Church. We do all kinds of things, because our call is not to do something. Our call is to live in a brotherhood where men or women spend each day trying to conform to Christ, as St. Paul said and to live in his Love as St. John said. We do not see ourselves as agents of change for anyone except ourselves.

Each of us has to change and let God worry about the rest. If we change, those around us will follow without having to be pushed. This was the Waldensian mistake. They pushed. When others pushed back, they took a position that placed them in conflict with authority.

Francis, on the other hand, did not push. When he was pushed, he simple backed off. People were in awe of this simplicity. His conviction was that he was not sent to change the world, but only to share his own change with those who would listen to him. This has been the Franciscan method to this day. We do not set out to change the world. We set out to change the way we live and to invite others to try it. If they don’t want to do so, we don’t sweat it. God will make it happen in his time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Historically St.Francis was not necessarily a reformer per se; but he sure went out of his way to evangelize the muslims bravely by himself. Although his life of obedience, vow of poverty etc. sure made headway within the hierarchy herself by reforming itself to a renewed obedience to the Church. I would never question the good Saints Love of God and love for the body of Christ in His Catholic church.

Peace be with you

JReducation;7490502]I believe that the bottom line here is that the attitude of the two men was very different, regardless of where they go their formation. Waldo wanted to reform the Church. Francis had no interest in doing so. Francis wanted to live the Gospel. He was aware of the need for reform, but he did not set himself up as a reformer. His point of view was that the call to holiness was to conform to Christ and to live in his Love, end of story. If he did that and those who wanted to follow him did that, the reform would come naturally.

There were a few friars, during the early years between Francis’ death and the generalate of Bonaventure who felt this call to reform the Church, as I call it, to fix the Church. Bonaventure set them straight by reminding them of Francis’ vision and mission.

To this day, the Franciscans do have a ministry in the Church. We do all kinds of things, because our call is not to do something. Our call is to live in a brotherhood where men or women spend each day trying to conform to Christ, as St. Paul said and to live in his Love as St. John said. We do not see ourselves as agents of change for anyone except ourselves.

Each of us has to change and let God worry about the rest. If we change, those around us will follow without having to be pushed. This was the Waldensian mistake. They pushed. When others pushed back, they took a position that placed them in conflict with authority.

Francis, on the other hand, did not push. When he was pushed, he simple backed off. People were in awe of this simplicity. His conviction was that he was not sent to change the world, but only to share his own change with those who would listen to him. This has been the Franciscan method to this day. We do not set out to change the world. We set out to change the way we live and to invite others to try it. If they don’t want to do so, we don’t sweat it. God will make it happen in his time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF