Peter Waldo and St. Francis of Assisi

[LaymanX]

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.

I personally do not know Waldo well enough to judge his attitude or intention or where to draw the line between “reform” and “living out the Gospel” or between “pushing” and “backing off.” I do know that my parents (both spiritual and biological) have made huge impact on what I think, do, and say. My language is limited to my geographic location, my education is limited to the resources I have available at my current time in history (both in science and humanities), and the range of ways (both appropriate and inappropriate; what is backing off and pushing; what is reform and growth) in which I can interact with my superiors and my subordinates are limited to what I saw and was taught as growing up. “Where they got their formation” does matter.

However, overall, I do appreciate the framework in which you addressed the problem this time (i.e., in terms of the need to distinguish between schismatic reform and Christlike growth or change). Your attitude is the same attitude I would encourage in others as well. Be true to Christ and His Gospel and let God do the reforming or changing. God doesn’t need heroes, but faithful servants. Faithfulness/Obedience is the true test of a hero/saint. Hence, St. Francis is clearly a Saint while brother Waldo is ambiguous.

However, I would prefer to leave it at that without trying to figure out Waldo’s intentions or attitude. To do so would also be doing something which should be left to the Supreme Judge alone. Clearly, Waldo loved Jesus and the Church, in whatever inadequate way he knew. Just as we shouldn’t push to reform, we shouldn’t push to judge a man’s intention or attitude. Problems are usually much more complicated than the single intention of one man, although in law, it is an expedient way to get things moving (and sometimes even necessary). Nevertheless, I think you are correct in making a distinction between the correct attitude one should have in regards to seeking appropriate change within an ecclesiastical order. Change yourself and let God work through you. This is much more profitable than the other path which “apparently” Waldo intended for himself and his disciples to take.

Peace and Grace,

Francis

 

[JReducation]

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

Our Holy Father was one of those people who was an accidental reformer. He did not see himself as a reformer, nor did he set out to reform anything. He made it quite clear in his appeal to Pope Innocent that all he wanted was permission for his brothers and him to live according to the Gospel. He wanted to get that permission, because Bishop Guido of Assisi told him that unless the pope gave the permission, he (Francis) would be branded a heretic. The cry “living the Gospel” had been used all to often by heretics. Bishop Guido was not going to take a chance by giving Francis such permission. It was either give up the plan to live according to the Gospel or get it approved by the pope himself.

As to the Muslims, that’s a rather interesting piece of history. Popular history has it that Francis set out to convert the Muslims. This is partly true. Because of the friction between Catholic Europe and the Muslims who had invaded, the rest of the story was never told until recently, although it has been known to the Franciscans since the 13th century and kept under the radar.

Francis set out for the Holy Land to preach to the Muslims in the hope that he could bring peace to the region. His idea was that if they could accept Jesus, they would then release the Holy Land to the Christians. He made it as far as Egypt. He did not make any converts, but he did make lasting friends among the Muslims in what is today Egypt, Jordan and Israel (Palestine). He agreed that if his friars were granted safe passage through this area to the Holy Land, they would never proselytize to the Muslims or Jews. Now, it must be understood that he never promised that they would not preach by the example of a Christian life, only that they would not attempt to convert Muslims or Jews.

The agreement was made between Francis and the Sultan and it was honored by the Holy See. The Holy See created the Custody of the Holy Land. Later, it was reworded to the Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land, because the term Custody created friction between the Friars, the Jews and the Muslims. Everyone wanted custody of Jerusalem. That was not Francis’ intentiion or that of the Church. All they wanted was to preserve the Christian culture by serving the Christians in the area. This agreement is still honored today by the Church, Muslims and Jews. There were martyrs, but they were martyred on the Western side of the Holy Land. They tried to reach it via Northwest Africa. Those friars who entered through what is today modern Egypt and Jordan were given free and safe passage in and out, even to this day. This agreement was not well known until the late 1800s or early 1900s when the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land was built to recruit American vocations to go to Palestine and to raise money for the friars in Palestine.

Another interesting detail was Francis’ conversation with Illuminato and Clare upon his return from Dalmietta. He brought back a new found respect for the Muslims and certain customs that he passed on to his friars. He also received a rather interesting piece of advice from Clare and Illuminato. They told him that he should commission the order to convert Catholics and leave the Muslims and Jews alone. Clare and Illuminato were very concerned about the Waldensians, Albegensians and several other groups that had arisen and that Catholics were following. Francis then set out to build the missions in Europe. He requested permission of the bishops and sent brothers to their dioceses and Clare sent her nuns to found new monasteries. However, Clare and Francis agreed that whenever the nuns or the friars were asked to leave, they would do so without hesitation.

Clare and Francis began this custom on their own and later, Gregory IX made it law. Originally, it was Clare and Francis who commanded the brothers and sisters not to enter any diocese without the permission of the bishop and they commanded them to leave upon request from the bishop. Today, Canon Law says that the bishop may not ask us to leave. However, the rule says that he may do so. If a bishop asks the Franciscans to leave, even though he is in violation of the canons, they must leave, because Francis and Clare commanded it and we vow obedience to them. They also command obedience to the bishop.

The only time that one may decline to comply is when one is asked to do something that is a sin. In that case, one has the right to appeal to the Major Superior who then deals with the bishop. If the person giving the command is the Major Superior, then one appeals to the superior above him all the way up to the pope. It all goes back to the proper exercise of obedience always placing the authority of the Church at the top. This was not an attempt to reform anything, but an attempt to recover the life of the Gospel as it was lived by the Apostles and the Church Fathers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JustaServant]

I think the key word here is obediance.
Perhaps Brother JR can correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive the Church hierarchy in the 13th century was no more corrupt than it was at the time of Luther. One man brought reform to the Church through a return to tradition, the other innovation. And I think this example is just as relevant today as it was in the time of St. Francis, or in the time of Luther.
It is very easy to look out at the visable Church and despair. That despair can lead one of two ways, innovation which leads to schism and even heresy. Or, through personal example, bringing the Church back to holiness by obediance and reliance upon tradition.

 

[Radical]

I think the key word here is obediance.

It looks like you are over simplifying the matter.

Martin Luther concluded that the Church (under the bishop of Rome) had fallen into doctrinal error. To obey Rome (and those aligned with the Pope) would have required Luther to endorse/preach a false gospel and reject/refrain from proclaiming (what he understood) to be the true gospel. Did Francis’s obedience involve preaching (what he understood to be) a false gospel? If not, is it your suggestion that Francis was so inclined to obedience (no matter what) that he would have submitted to publicly endorsing a false gospel? Do you think that our call to obedience should extend to preaching a false gospel? Should it extend to not challenging any doctrine, no matter how erroneous it appears?

Is it simply a matter of obedience, or is it also very much about whether your church can actually err in matters of doctrine? If we assume it can’t, then one should never challenge its official doctrine. If we recognize that it can, then what is our remedy when we see that such has happened? If Luther, (rightly in my mind) saw doctrinal error, then what course of action would you have recommended for him? Your church would have killed or imprisoned Luther (and any one else who preached against it) if given the chance. Did Francis’s ever face the threat of death from Rome b/c he followed his conscience?

It is very easy to look out at the visable Church and despair. That despair can lead one of two ways, innovation which leads to schism and even heresy.

Is schism from a doctrinally erring Church a bad thing? Is innovation that removes error a bad thing? Is obedience to and acceptance of error a good thing? It seems to me that your position rests entirely on the assumption that your Church can’t fall into serious error and that, therefore, obedience = good and disobedience = bad. Unless one shares that assumption, it is hardly that simple.

Or, through personal example, bringing the Church back to holiness by obediance and reliance upon tradition.

…and if the Church is so out of touch with the Spirit that it can’t recognize its error, how does one bring it back to holiness? Again, I suspect that you believe that it could never get to that point.

 

[DebChris]

I agree that the key word is indeed obedience to sacred tradition safeguarded and handed on to us intact by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
*This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together they and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute to the salvation of souls. * Dogmatic Constitution, Ch. 2).

Re: JR #22. It is the Franciscan order that continues as a sign of Christianity in a predominantly Muslim part of the world. The Catholic Church in my parish is represented by Franciscan priests and Carmelite nuns.

 

[JReducation]

To answer the first question, the issue within the Church of the 13th century was much more severe than during the 16th and 17th centuries. What Francis displays is a faith in Christ’s promise, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against you.” Remember what he said in his rule and what he proposed to Pope Innocent III, “The live the Gospel in obedience” There is a two-fold commitment. He was committed to live the Gospel, but in obedience to the Successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles…

Does this mean that they were never guilty of personal error? No. Francis knew that; but that was not a concern to him. Their error was an issue that they had to deal with, not he. He was neither their superior nor their god. His concern was that the Church has never officially taught false doctrine. Individuals have embraced many goofy things. That’s individuals. The teachings of the Church remained and still to, faithful to the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. For this reason he says that on is not bound to obey a command to sin. But such a command would never be a doctrinal command. It would be a personal command. In other words, regardless of the position of the person giving the command, he’s not speaking for the Church. The Church cannot command contrary to doctrine. Francis knew this, because he lived the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the Apostles and reaffirmed by the Fathers of the Church. One of Francis’ most important resources was Clement of Rome, third successor of Peter. Clement sets it out very clearly, in his letter to the Corinthians, that the Apostles had taught him and those first Fathers, that the Church could not teach error. They were confident, that despite their personal weaknesses, the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostolic community, believed by the early Church, reaffirmed by the Fathers and later recorded into the NT, could not be in error.

Where Luther gets side tracked is not so much with the sins of the hierarchy. These were obvious to many people and Luther was not the only person to work to restore a sense of order. Yet, others did not end up leaving. Luther’s problem was that he lost sight of the order of Sacred Tradition. Once he put the NT before the Church, then he was left with a very confusing paradigm, because he had a NT that said X and a Church that said, X, Y and Z. Francis was very aware that it was the Church that had put together the NT, not the other way around. He was also very aware, through the writings of the Fathers, that many things that the Church believed from the Day One were not recorded in the NT, because the NT could not contain it all. As John wrote and later told Polycarp, there was much more, but you don’t have enough books or space to write it all down. It was passed from the Apostles to their students and so forth. Luther loses sight of this. And ends up in trouble.

No one would say that Luther failed to make valid points. He did. But he also made some erroneous ones. The ones that got him excommunicated were the errors on doctrinal matters, not the points that he made on disciplinary matters.

We have to remember that you have not only Luther and Francis in this picture. There were, Dominic, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, the Cluniac Reformers, Bernard of Clairveaux, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, John duns Scotus, Bonaventure, the Capuchin Reformers, John of the Cross. It’s extraordinary to believe that only Luther was faithful to the Apostolic tradition and this whole group was wrong. The fact is that these others men and women were holy men and women, scholars, theologians, and faithful to Sacred Tradition. It’s an insult to them and to their legacy to allege that they obeyed error, because they remained faithful to the Successor of Peter. It is also interesting that Luther’s own Augustinian community agreed with his concerns about discipline, but his Prior had told him that if he touched doctrine, he would not be able to support him or protect him, because he would be denying Revealed Truth.

 

[JReducation]

To conclude, did Francis obey a pope who was in error? Yes he did. Innocent III was not so innocent. He was young, at times reckless, and he was, to a certain extent, a warrior pope. Honorius was a horse of a different color. He had some serious faults, but he was more mature than Innocent when he came to the papacy. Finally, Gregory IX, who reigned when Francis was dying, was a very good man. Yes, Francis did obey a pope that was in error, because the pope never taught doctrinal errors. That’s impossible and Francis knew it. He knew this from the Gospel and from the writings of the Church Fathers who had already affirmed this by the fourth pope, which was not long after the death of Peter, since those guys were being martyred one after another, their papacies were very short.

Francis understood the difference between discipline and doctrine. If the Church said that you should pray while standing on your head, that’s a discipline, not a doctrine. It’s a ridiculous discipline at best. But there is no offense to God or man to obey it. On the contrary, Francis understood that it was an opportunity to offer God some penance, by doing something silly for the sake of obedience, in other words, for the sake of virtue. This is the same case with all of the reformers who remained inside the Catholic Church. These men and women knew that no matter what happened, the Church would never lose her communion with the Apostles, because she was built upon the faith of the Apostles with Peter as the rock. God does not revoke his covenants.

Francis understood that there was a covenant between Christ and the Church and a covenant between Christ and Peter. “Whatever you bind, shall be bound . . . whatever you unbind, shall be unbound.”

“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

“He who hears you, hears me”

These covenant promises that the first Christians believed and recorded in the NT were the foundation upon which the Catholic reformers rested. They worked to reform discipline and restore order, beginning with their own lives. They were secure in the knowledge that doctrine was safe and would always be safe, regardless of man’s sins. God’s truths are not subordinate to sin.

Something that I have always found interesting is that Luther hated Francis of Assisi. He wrote several letters in which he reduces Francis to “weak minded” something or other. I can’t recall the rest. This, to me, was a turn-off when I read Luther. As I was thinking and discerning whether or not to become a Christian, I was very turned off by the condemnation and judgment on Luther’s part concerning a man whom even non-Christians venerate. I was born Jewish. Therefore, I’m a Hebrew-Catholic. All the time, growing up, our Rabbis extolled the virtues of Francis of Assisi. Later, I would learn that the Lutherans and Anglicans founded their own Franciscan congregations and confraternities. To the best of my knowledge, the only Christian or non-Christian who has ever thought that Francis was less was Luther. My take, is that Luther did not really believe this, but he was very angry, because the Mendicants challenged him. The largest groups of Mendicants during Luther’s lifetime were the Dominicans and Franciscans.

I also have to say that they were not the most diplomatic messengers that the pope could have sent. Had Luther not been so scrupulous and so bull-headed and had they papal envoys been more diplomatic and less condescending toward him, they may have been able to talk instead of fight. But I believe that this is part of the culture of the time. People fought over everything and dialogue was a non-existent word.

We almost have come around full-circle again, in the Americas and the European nations. We have become confrontational rather than communicative.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PbloPicasso]

:compcoff:

Okay, let me see. I’m trying to get everything.
I feel like I’m in a class at school.

 

[JReducation]

:compcoff:

Okay, let me see. I’m trying to get everything.
I feel like I’m in a class at school.

Welcome to Franciscan History 101.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is the difference between Peter Waldo and St. Francis of Assisi; Each set out to preach and live a life of poverty. Waldo set out to preach a reform taking on the “brethren of the spirit” phylosophy introducing new doctrines which rejected what God had already revealed through the Son Jesus handed down both oral and written to the Catholic Church.

Whereby St. Francis holding to these already revealed “Truth’s” by God in His Church, St. Francis did not set out to change or reform revealed Church doctrine but “discipline”, as you have commented.

Interesting how Waldo brought negativity to his sole ministry of Evangelization, and St.Francis brought approval from the Church, when he took it upon himself to go out to the Muslims.

The battle cry, I believe was St.Francis holding to the Doctrine of the Church with saintly disciplines, and Waldo trusting in the " Freedom of the Spirit" phylosophies that was believed to exceed the Church, bible and magisterium, that took on disciplines for the body in a different light than that of St. Francis of Assisi.

This “freedom of the Spirit” has developed into protestant theologies which continues to plaque protestants into divisions of interpretations and doctrines sometimes NON- denominations which have no creed or doctrines to follow other than every wind of doctrine in the name of the bible.

JReducation;7493594]
The agreement was made between Francis and the Sultan and it was honored by the Holy See. The Holy See created the Custody of the Holy Land. Later, it was reworded to the Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land, because the term Custody created friction between the Friars, the Jews and the Muslims. Everyone wanted custody of Jerusalem. That was not Francis’ intentiion or that of the Church. All they wanted was to preserve the Christian culture by serving the Christians in the area. This agreement is still honored today by the Church, Muslims and Jews. There were martyrs, but they were martyred on the Western side of the Holy Land. They tried to reach it via Northwest Africa. Those friars who entered through what is today modern Egypt and Jordan were given free and safe passage in and out, even to this day. This agreement was not well known until the late 1800s or early 1900s when the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land was built to recruit American vocations to go to Palestine and to raise money for the friars in Palestine.

 

[Radical]

What Francis displays is a faith in Christ’s promise, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”

If so, then I believe that what Francis displayed was faith in a particular (and rather questionable) interpretation of that promise. If his interpretation was incorrect, then his faith was misplaced…Your posts very much reinforce what I was saying, namely that the requirement of obedience rests solidly on the assumption that the CC can’t err in its doctrine.

Remember what he said in his rule and what he proposed to Pope Innocent III, “The live the Gospel in obedience” There is a two-fold commitment. He was committed to live the Gospel, but in obedience to the Successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles….Individuals have embraced many goofy things. That’s individuals. The teachings of the Church remained and still to, faithful to the teachings of the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church. For this reason he says that on is not bound to obey a command to sin. But such a command would never be a doctrinal command. It would be a personal command. In other words, regardless of the position of the person giving the command, he’s not speaking for the Church. The Church cannot command contrary to doctrine.

So then, by this reasoning, if Luther and all the Protestants after him were right in that the bishops who were aligned with the Pope were teaching false doctrine, then by challenging them, Luther was not challenging the Church (b/c it can’t teach error), but was challenging some other entity….obedience to the successors of the Apostles would require obedience to the Church and not obedience to those bishops and those popes…unless, of course, one continues to make the assumption that Rome and its bishops can’t err. As individuals they can err (as you admit) and I see no reason to assume that their freedom to err is removed when they come together.

Francis knew this, because he lived the Gospel as it was proclaimed by the Apostles and reaffirmed by the Fathers of the Church.

Luther also thought that he lived the gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles….and so do hundreds of millions of Protestants

One of Francis’ most important resources was Clement of Rome, third successor of Peter. Clement sets it out very clearly, in his letter to the Corinthians, that the Apostles had taught him and those first Fathers, that the Church could not teach error.

what paragraph(s) of Clement do you have in mind?..not that Clement derived all of his beliefs from the apostles (the Phoenix comes to mind).

Yet, others did not end up leaving. Luther’s problem was that he lost sight of the order of Sacred Tradition. Once he put the NT before the Church, then he was left with a very confusing paradigm, because he had a NT that said X and a Church that said, X, Y and Z.

Both sentences beg the question…Luther hardly lost sight of Sacred Tradition if, in fact, the tradition in question was erroneous tradition. Also, if it is as you have claimed and the true Church can’t teach error, then putting the NT before a church (that is teaching error) is not putting the NT before the Church.

Francis was very aware that it was the Church that had put together the NT, not the other way around.

Francis should have also been aware that the Scriptures didn’t require any approval from the Church to be God’s inspired revelation …but let’s give credit where credit is due. If the Church didn’t err in putting together the NT, then it is b/c God oversaw the process. If the Church didn’t err in the formation of its tradition, then it is b/c God oversaw the process. God’s involvement is the critical ingredient and I think it a grand mistake to simply assume its presence.

He was also very aware, through the writings of the Fathers, that many things that the Church believed from the Day One were not recorded in the NT, because the NT could not contain it all. As John wrote and later told Polycarp, there was much more, but you don’t have enough books or space to write it all down. It was passed from the Apostles to their students and so forth. Luther loses sight of this. And ends up in trouble.

Again it is merely a matter of your faith that the things that the beloved disciple had in mind are the same things that the Catholic Church teaches today and that are not contained in the NT. It is a matter of faith that they were passed on w/o changes, amendments and additions.

We have to remember that you have not only Luther and Francis in this picture. There were, Dominic, Teresa of Avila, Ignatius of Loyola, the Cluniac Reformers, Bernard of Clairveaux, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, John duns Scotus, Bonaventure, the Capuchin Reformers, John of the Cross. It’s extraordinary to believe that only Luther was faithful to the Apostolic tradition and this whole group was wrong. The fact is that these others men and women were holy men and women, scholars, theologians, and faithful to Sacred Tradition. It’s an insult to them and to their legacy to allege that they obeyed error, because they remained faithful to the Successor of Peter.

If is was merely one against many then it might be an extraordinary thing to believe, but it isn’t just Luther on this side of the fence…One could list thousands after thousands of holy Protestant men, women, scholars, and theologians who were faithful to the gospel, but not Catholic tradition. (One could also list many Catholic men, women, scholars, and theologians who were faithful to the gospel, but not to all Catholic tradition) Is it an insult to them and to their legacy to allege that they erred, because they didn’t submit to the alleged Successor of Peter?
.

 

[Radical]

JReducation:

This is the same case with all of the reformers who remained inside the Catholic Church. These men and women knew that no matter what happened, the Church would never lose her communion with the Apostles, because she was built upon the faith of the Apostles with Peter as the rock. God does not revoke his covenants.

God may not revoke his covenants, but this does not mean that he has rid man of all freedom so that man can not choose to walk away from God’s guidance.

Francis understood that there was a covenant between Christ and the Church and a covenant between Christ and Peter. “Whatever you bind, shall be bound . . . whatever you unbind, shall be unbound"
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

“He who hears you, hears me”

any one can look at these verses and see that there is nothing in them that establishes your claims that “the Church would never lose her communion with the Apostles” or that “that doctrine was safe and would always be safe”…or that the medieval Catholic Church was THE Church….it really seems to be a case of “we can’t err b/c that’s what we say God said”…

God’s truths are not subordinate to sin.

unfortunately this does not mean that his truths can’t be mixed with error. One needs to look no further than the Pharisees of the 1st century.

Had Luther not been so scrupulous and so bull-headed and had they papal envoys been more diplomatic and less condescending toward him, they may have been able to talk instead of fight. But I believe that this is part of the culture of the time. People fought over everything and dialogue was a non-existent word.

I don’t know that any dialogue of reconciliation is available today. When one side is convinced that it is incapable of any doctrinal error, not much can be achieved as that side only calls for submission/obedience to it. Yes, liberty WRT discipline, but strict obedience wrt doctrine. When you declare “I am always right” it means that you are also saying “You are wrong when you disagree with me”. I would not consider that to be very communicative.

We almost have come around full-circle again, in the Americas and the European nations. We have become confrontational rather than communicative.

What would you call it when one side is insulted if it is suggested that its saints have obeyed error, but that same side does not hesitate in insisting that the other side’s saints have obeyed error? Is it that when a Protestant tells a Catholic that Catholic saints have erred, that the Protestant is being confrontational? And is it that when a Catholic tells a Protestant that Protestant saints have erred, that the Catholic is speaking the truth in love?

What I would like to know is, if Luther was right that the CC had erred wrt doctrine, do you think that he should have submitted and preached error? Yes, yes, I know that you and all other conservative Catholics think that such is an impossibility, but it shouldn’t be that hard to answer such a hypothetical question. I am curious as to how far you would push the requirement of obedience.

 

[DebChris]

Since the teachings of the Catholic Church are protected by the Holy Spirit, to say that the Church is capable of doctrinal error is to deny this divine protection.
Tradition is the teachings of Christ as handed to us directly as taught to the Apostles by Christ himself. This is not the same as regional customs, or traditions. At no time does obedience call an individual to sin. Obedience means to listen. As scripture says, to neglect to follow conscience is to sin…
I like the scene in Brother Sun, Sister Moon where Francis goes to Rome. His question to the pope as to whether or not he has sinned brings the pope to repentance. Francis did not rely on his own interpretation of scripture, which could be misguided. Instead, he sought confirmation that his interpretation was correct in light of magisterial teaching.
We are called to the virtue of humility, as demonstrated by St. Francis, and to avoid the sin of spiritual pride, the presumption that “I am right” and that those placed in authority are wrong.
The literal interpretation of St. Francis to rebuild the church did lead to a rebuilding of God’s Church. It is not the doctrine of the Church that was in error. It is individuals, including popes and bishops, who sinned in their failure to follow Christ without reservation.

 

[JReducation]

God may not revoke his covenants, but this does not mean that he has rid man of all freedom so that man can not choose to walk away from God’s guidance.
any one can look at these verses and see that there is nothing in them that establishes your claims that “the Church would never lose her communion with the Apostles” or that “that doctrine was safe and would always be safe”…or that the medieval Catholic Church was THE Church….it really seems to be a case of “we can’t err b/c that’s what we say God said”…

unfortunately this does not mean that his truths can’t be mixed with error. One needs to look no further than the Pharisees of the 1st century.
I don’t know that any dialogue of reconciliation is available today. When one side is convinced that it is incapable of any doctrinal error, not much can be achieved as that side only calls for submission/obedience to it. Yes, liberty WRT discipline, but strict obedience wrt doctrine. When you declare “I am always right” it means that you are also saying “You are wrong when you disagree with me”. I would not consider that to be very communicative.
What would you call it when one side is insulted if it is suggested that its saints have obeyed error, but that same side does not hesitate in insisting that the other side’s saints have obeyed error? Is it that when a Protestant tells a Catholic that Catholic saints have erred, that the Protestant is being confrontational? And is it that when a Catholic tells a Protestant that Protestant saints have erred, that the Catholic is speaking the truth in love?

What I would like to know is, if Luther was right that the CC had erred wrt doctrine, do you think that he should have submitted and preached error? Yes, yes, I know that you and all other conservative Catholics think that such is an impossibility, but it shouldn’t be that hard to answer such a hypothetical question. I am curious as to how far you would push the requirement of obedience.

A hypothetical question can only be raised when there is a remote possibility that something may be true. The Church cannot err in matters of doctrine and morals. Therefore, there is no possibility that Luther or anyone else has ever been asked to believe, teach or follow false doctrine. People have been asked to do dumb things imprudent things, even useless things, but never to teach or believe error. Nor has the Church ever taught something that is a sin, despite the fact that individuals have committed many sins. As a collective, the college of bishops is an infallible body. Whatever they teach as doctrine or morals, with the intention to speak infallibly, is error free, because it is guarranteed by Christ’s promise. Man cannot, no matter how much he may try, circumvent God’s will. It is God’s will that his Church be free of error in matters of doctrine and morals.

This does not interfere with free choice. What simply happens is that God does not provide the opportunity to make such a choice. Man has free choice, but God controls history.

The question on the table is not about infallibility. The question is about Waldo and Francis. I believe the differences between the two have been explained with clarity and historical honesty. Please do not insist on the issue of Luther, because he is not the topic. Luther had legitimate complaints about disciplines and moral behaviors of individuals. His complaints aboiut doctrinal errors were his own erroneous interpretation of scritpure and historical theology. This does not deny that many Lutherans have been very holy people. They were born into this community. They did not commit the errors. Luther is responsible for his errors, not the Lutheran community. So in that case, Luther did stand alone against some giants in theology. He did not consider any of them worhty of his attention. As he said in two of his letters, Francis of Assisi was a “weak minded man”. How many people in this world are audacious enough to make such a comment about Francis of Assisi? This shows that Luther was lashing out, because he was very angry. He had some reasons to be angry, but he also brought a lot of the anger on himself by his own choices. That’s all that I’m going to say about Luther. If you want to discuss Luther on another thread, please feel free to start one. This one is about Waldo and Francis of Assisi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LaymanX]

I like the scene in Brother Sun, Sister Moon where Francis goes to Rome. His question to the pope as to whether or not he has sinned brings the pope to repentance. Francis did not rely on his own interpretation of scripture, which could be misguided. Instead, he sought confirmation that his interpretation was correct in light of magisterial teaching.
.

In regards to the actions between Waldo and St. Francis, I will use the framework from the previous discussions. Where do you draw the line between schismatic reform and genuine growth, or to put it even more succinctly, between schism and growth? In the quote above, one important ingredient seems to be the way in which St. Francis “sought confirmation.” However, not all popes are brought to repentance. How long should one suppress one’s own conscience and wait for injustices to continue? The next pope, and the next, and the next? Waldo couldn’t wait any longer, St. Francis did. Infallibility plays a huge role in this situation, because our decision to act now or wait until later will depend on where we place infallibility? So where does infallibility lie? In the See of Rome or in the Sees of the Catholic Church? Let us, in the spirit of Francis, seek confirmation in light of the magisterial teachings of the Ecumenical Councils.

Waldo and St. Francis are paradigmatic cases of what has been going on since the second Ecumenical Council. One side understood the 3rd Canon as primacy of Rome, while another side understood the 3rd Canon as primus inter pares. The latter interpretation suggests that although the Bishop of Rome is wise and honorable (and generally correct), there are times when the other Bishops are more informed to make wiser decisions. There are always limitations to human beings, even the Bishop of Rome (e.g., financial situation of a particular See, linguistic barriers when one See doesn’t really understand Greek properly, cultural barriers, and geographical separation). Sometimes one See loses its authority to other Sees and this why primary Sees can and should change. For example, See of Alexandria was demoted under Constantinople. Later on, Rome and Constantinople shared same privileges. The See of Moscow and Canterbury may have been in better situation to assess the situation than the Bishop of Rome and Constantinople.

I think good a case can be made that infallibility lies in the Communion of Bishops, not a particular Bishop of a particular See. The Anglican Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and the Assyrian Church, agree to this interpretation of the 3rd Canon of the second Ecumenical Council. This seems to be the case when we interpret the 3rd Canon of the second Ecumenical Council in light of the 6th Canon of the first Ecumenical Council and the 28th Canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council. One Bishop of one See can err, but not when all the Bishops of all the Sees meet together peaceably, humbly, and patiently to make wise decisions. The primary See can change and should change with the environment and situation.

I would even say that, given our current globalization, the Seat of Pope, and all the Primary Sees need to think about shifting to non-European provinces, because the environment and situation has changed once again. This ethnocentrism goes blatantly against the Church’s claim to catholicity. Polish and German popes do not represent the rest of the world. How about a Black, Asian or Latin American Pope? Same goes for the Sees in Canterbury and Moscow. Why not in Africa or Asia or South America? Just a suggestion. Granted, many of these countries are still developing and still need tutelage. But there at least needs to be proper logistics set in place, so that when the situation calls for it, the papal seat and the primary Sees can be taken up with a non-European person/city. An infallible Church certainly is not going to be under the guidance of a ethnocentric Spirit, it is the Catholic Spirit.

 

[DebChris]

When I was a young girl, I would pick up free books about saints from the back of the chapel to read. I read books about Joan of Arc, The Fourth Wise Man, as well as others. One book that I read after completing 8th grade was about the Black popes that have headed the Church. My memory tells me there were six, but my search only shows three African popes:
Pope St. Victor I (186-197), Pope St. Miltiades (311-314), and Pope Gelasius I (492-496).
While most recent Church history does show a tendency for the College of Cardinals to elect Italian, or at least European bishops to the pontificate, it is not unprecedented that a pope will be chosen outside European boundaries. Since the Church is growing most rapidly in Asian and African nations, there is reason to believe it will not be long before a pope is chosen from an Asian or African country.
As JR has already mentioned, it is the collective college of bishops who hold infallibility. The magisterium is comprised of the Pope and the college of bishops. The members of the magisterium trace their history directly to the Apostles, to whom the teachings of the Church were entrusted. We find in the Book of Acts how the early Christians submitted to the teachings of the Apostles.
There are steps that can be taken when asked to act contrary to conscience. The first is explain your reasoning to the person directly giving the command. In my own life, I have done exactly this taking the matter next to my pastor who provided an alternative. I will obviously not divulge what I was asked, why it would be a personal sin for me, or the alternative provided.
It is interesting in reading the autobiography of St. Ignatius to see how his obedience in small matters helped strengthen his faith and resolve. As he became more confident, he also became proactive in presenting his position to potential prosecutors.
While individuals may err, the Church does not. Its teachings are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. God does not err.

 

[LaymanX]

As JR has already mentioned, it is the collective college of bishops who hold infallibility. The magisterium is comprised of the pope and the college of bishops. The members of the magisterium trace their history directly to the Apostles, to whom the teachings of the Church were entrusted. We find in the Book of Acts how the early Christians submitted to the teachings of the Apostles.

Yes, I entirely agree with your statement. The difference lies in the understanding of the ‘Pope’ and the “college of bishops.” The “college of bishops” in the context of the statement above already presupposes the primacy of Rome and the infallibility of the papal seat (which is a naturally corollary). I would say that the other Communions (i.e., Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, and Anglican) consider the “college of bishops” as all the bishops of all the provinces of the world, and the “papal seat” as the seat of the Primate of the current primal See. Everything else is fairly identical in respects to infallibility in the Church. This brings us back to our interpretation of the 3rd canon of the second Ecumenical Council. We really can’t get around the problem of the primacy of Rome until we fully settle the issue of this particular canon. Is it absolute primacy of Rome, or primus inter pares? We have much work to do. Someone has to be correct.

In His grace,

Francis

 

[LaymanX]

my search only shows three African popes:
Pope St. Victor I (186-197), Pope St. Miltiades (311-314), and Pope Gelasius I (492-496).
While most recent Church history does show a tendency for the College of Cardinals to elect Italian, or at least European bishops to the pontificate, it is not unprecedented that a pope will be chosen outside European boundaries. Since the Church is growing most rapidly in Asian and African nations, there is reason to believe it will not be long before a pope is chosen from an Asian or African country.

Thank for you taking the time the search for “colored” popes (although I was hoping for one after 1800s when colonialism reached its zenith). My hope is that the papal seat will be truly multi-ethnic some day. Preferably by next papal election. I’m sure if the pope and the college of bishops truly have the catholic, infallible spirit of God guiding them, the Church necessarily will not be racist. Currently, I think primus inter pares seems like the more probable interpretation of the 3rd canon of the second Ecumenical Council, but if the See of Rome takes the lead and becomes multi-ethnic before the other Communions (Assyrian, Coptic, Orthodox, Anglican), I may consider the idea that the infallible and catholic Spirit of God resides in Rome.

All the Best,

Francis

 

[odopa]

Well written Brother,

Obedience,obedience, obedience. poverty, humility, chastity. Words you would associate with a true franciscan. thank you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Radical; upon revisiting this era of St. Francis and Peter Valdes (Waldo). Revealed to me the chasm between St. Francis and Waldo deals with matters of “Faith”.

St.Francis remained in the Apostolic Catholic “faith” that was handed down to him unchanged. Waldo on the other hand substituted his Apostolic Catholic “faith” and changed it with a “spiritual” interpretation thus leaving his Apostolic roots for a new ideology.

This I believe is where Waldo and protestants begin to err tremendously. By replacing their apostolic “Faith and apostolic Traditions” with new ones replacing “Faith” with interpretations of what is dubbed “of the spirit” introducing a new symbolic “Faith” not a reformed “faith” back to the “faith” from antiquity.

I believe your argument does not hold water, because you are introducing actions of individuals, members of the magisterium with disciplines and relating them to doctrines of the Apostolic “faith” which is not the case. These Catholic members although can error in their humanity, but the doctrines of the Catholic faith handed down from apostles and Jesus never can err nor can they ever change.

Had Waldo and or Luther never replaced their Apostolic Catholic faith with a new interpretation or rejection thereof Church doctrine, applying their freedom of the “spirit” with disciplines only as did St. Francis of Assisi, the former took their new founded interpretations to new heights by protesting what God had already revealed with their own new founded “faith”. Had they limited their enlightenment’s and protest’s to disciplines only in the church would of helped reformed the disciplines of Church not the deposit of faith from Jesus and His apostles. They would of never error ed.

Thus the Catholic Church remains today unchanged by them in doctrine, yet their communities today have a great divide among its members and doctrines.

Scripture teaches that we are “One faith”. This one faith is still held in the Catholic church since apostolic times. St. Francis life of obedience and poverty are disciplines can attest to this, which can change, but Apostolic Catholic faith never can change.

In summary their is vast divide between disciplines, Spirit and faith. Waldo, I believe “replaced” his spiritual readings with faith which is never the same. One cannot define a faith based solely on how one feels and calling it “spirit”. There is no such thing as a symbolic spirit and renaming it “faith” either from the scriptures nor Apostolic Traditions. There can only be “one faith, one baptism and One Lord” according to scripture. And one does not arrive at these based on ones interpretation or enlightenment from the reading of the scriptures without apostolic teachings and Traditions attached to the interpretation.

In other words the apostolic faith is real and tangible which cannot change, the Spirit however is our teacher and He does not change either. So how can Waldo and or protestants come up with new “spiritual” interpretations of the bible outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic biblical faith when the Spirit has already revealed this “Truth” to His Church since apostolic times? Disciplines and actions of Church members as you argue them is subject to debate and change but never the doctrines of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Waldo and Luther’s interpretations left the Rock upon whom Jesus built His Church. By misjudging disciplines of the Church with Church doctrine. They claimed a superior notion from “things of the spirit” which they received from their own spiritual readings, not apostolic revelations.

The Catholic Church herself cannot err. Jesus built her upon Rock which cannot change from what Jesus has revealed to her and commissioned her to preach, teach, and baptise. Waldo, Luther and others today are Johny come lately who continue to try and change what God has already revealed 2000 years ago.

Again the “one faith” revealed and handed down to us from Jesus and His apostles cannot be replaced with someones new interpretation of scripture and relabeling the Spirit (a living being) with a symbolic spirit and calling it “faith” which does not come from what Jesus revealed to his Apostles and was handed down to us by both written and oral Traditions which gives the “full deposit of faith”. Disciplines, members of the Church who sin is not a reason to reinvent what God has already revealed. No one can change the “full deposit of faith”.

peace be with you

Radical;7499064]If so, then I believe that what Francis displayed was faith in a particular (and rather questionable) interpretation of that promise. If his interpretation was incorrect, then his faith was misplaced…Your posts very much reinforce what I was saying, namely that the requirement of obedience rests solidly on the assumption that the CC can’t err in its doctrine.

So then, by this reasoning, if Luther and all the Protestants after him were right in that the bishops who were aligned with the Pope were teaching false doctrine, then by challenging them, Luther was not challenging the Church (b/c it can’t teach error), but was challenging some other entity….
Luther also thought that he lived the gospel as proclaimed by the Apostles….and so do hundreds of millions of Protestants