Peter Waldo and St. Francis of Assisi

[DebChris]

Re Gabriel #40:
I mentioned Ignatius in an earlier post. St. Francis lived in radical poverty. Out of obedience, St. Ignatius bought more presentable clothing. Both were obedient to the magisterium even though their individual lifestyles differed. Ignatius was questioned regarding his Spiritual Exercises which in time have become a recognized discipline within the Catholic Faith.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Disciplines can be subject to change, but never the doctrines of the Apostolic Catholic Faith. Some of these great Saints disciplines have come and went. The great and difficult ones are lived by those who are called to live out these disciplines for the body of Christ such as celibacy, but to others these disciplines we are not called by God to be "eunuchs or virgins, yet we are all called to live out the revealed teachings of Jesus made doctrine by the Church for all to obey these teachings of Christ and His apostles.

Tertullian was another one who delved into deep spiritual exercises, his writings give witness to his superior enlightenment’s at the time, today Popes and bishops quote him. Yet he was almost excommunicated and was a border line heretic.

DebChris;7503053]Re Gabriel #40:
I mentioned Ignatius in an earlier post. St. Francis lived in radical poverty. Out of obedience, St. Ignatius bought more presentable clothing. Both were obedient to the magisterium even though their individual lifestyles differed. Ignatius was questioned regarding his Spiritual Exercises which in time have become a recognized discipline within the Catholic Faith.

 

[JustaServant]

Once a Waldensian challenged Francis on his unshakeable reverence for priests, by pointing out the local pastor who was living in sin. “Must we believe in his teaching and respect the sacraments he performs?”
In response, Francis went to the priest’s home and knelt before him saying,
“I don’t know whether these hands are stained as the other man says they are. [But] I do know that even if they are, that in no way lessens the power and effectiveness of the sacraments of God… That is why I kiss these hands out of respect for what they perform and out of respect for Him who gave His authority to them.”
His challenger left in silence.

It all comes down to authority and obedience.

 

[JReducation]

Re Gabriel #40:
I mentioned Ignatius in an earlier post. St. Francis lived in radical poverty. Out of obedience, St. Ignatius bought more presentable clothing. Both were obedient to the magisterium even though their individual lifestyles differed. Ignatius was questioned regarding his Spiritual Exercises which in time have become a recognized discipline within the Catholic Faith.

One thing that we have to remember is that there is a difference between the mission of St. Francis and the mission of St. Ignatius. St. Francis set out to live the Gospel in obedience, without property and in brotherhood. He had no intention of preaching to anyone. He had no intention of reforming anything. He had no desire to start a new religious family. He did not intend to convert anyone but himself. He did not intend to found a clerical institute. In essence, the mission of St. Francis was to live his life in his hometown of Assisi according to the Gospel. He was so in love with God that he could not contain himself; therefore, he told everyone about the love, glory and goodness of God. When asked how one could respond to such goodness and love, Francis’ response was to do penance, abandon all things that interfere with prayer, and live in brotherhood with all people. It is in retrospect that we say “Francis of Assisi preached.” Had you asked Francis if he ever preached, he would have said, “No, I have never preached.” His understanding of preaching was very formal, such as that of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). That’s why he did not want to join forces with the Friar Preachers. The pope offered this option. But the Dominicans had a defined ministry, to preach. In order to do so they had to be priests. It was a double purpose, it was an order of preacher priests. Francis was not interested in any specific mission. He responded to the need of the moment.

Ignatius and Dominic had great admiration for Francis’ faith and his manner of living the Gospel. Dominic was very enphatic on poverty. Ignatius tried it, but it was not allowed by the Church. What many people do not realize is why it was not allowed. By the time that the Ignatius founded the Society of Jesus, new religious orders were banned. The last religious order allowed was the Secular Franciscan Order in 1221. Ignatius was ordered to found a company of clerks regular.

Clerks regular are priests who live and work like secular priests and diocesan priests, but are in vows and belong to a community. They support each other in their ministry and take care of each other in time of need, such as old age or illness. Beyond that, they are very independent. They are governed by a Superior General whom they elect. The Superior General appoints the Provincial Superiors. It’s like an army. The Superior General is the President and he selects his cabinet. They do not have a rule of life. They have statutes that St. Ignatius wrote. Those statutes are juridical.

Francis accidently founded a brotherhood. Men followed him. Some were priests and most were laymen. They all vowed to live the Gospel in total and absolute obedience to Francis. Francis vowed to absolute obedience to the Pope and the bishops. The line of authority was from the pope, through the bishops, to Francis, to the brothers. Francis did this so that there would never be a superior among his brothers. To this day, Franciscan men do not have superiors, priors or abbots. They were forbidden by the rule. Francis was also allowed to write a rule, even though the papacy had said that no furhter rules for religious life could be written. He was allowed to write three rules: for the brothers, the nuns and the seculars. Then the era of rules was closed to this day. No religious community may have a rule. There is another difference between Ignatius and Francis.

Francis did not need the structure of the Clerks Regular, because his order is not an order of priests. It’s a family of brothers and sisters bound to obedience. We’re not even bound to poverty. Poverty and obedience are almost interchangeable in Franciscan language. One detaches from one’s will, one’s desires, one’s opinions, the most important posessions in our lives and submits to the authority of the Church and to the Gospels as interpreted by the Church. Our daily life is focussed on living the Gospel as it has been revealed to the Church.

 

[JReducation]

The mission of the Jesuits is to proclaim the Gospel as it has been revealed to the Church. They are priets who teach, preach, write and do whatever it takes to proclaim the Gospel. We are not.

We are a family of men and women who live the Gospel. Some friars are priests and some friars are not. But all are brothers. No one is superior to anyone else. The community is governed by the chapter. The friars examine the rule and based on the Rule, they write statutes that govern their dialy lives. There is a Guardian whose ministry it is to ensure that the decisions made in the chapter are executed. These Guardians are called Minsisters. There is one for each house, one for each region and one each branch of the order. These Ministers take their marching orders from their brothers who decide what needs to be done and how to do it. The ministers then make it happen by moving people around. When we obey a minister, we’re really obeying the brotherhood. The minister can only command what the brotherhood allows him to command. This is not the case with Clerks Regular. The Superior of the Jesuits is like a military officer. He commands and needs no permission from anyone to command.

Francis also demanded that the brothers look to the papacy and the local bishops in making regulations that were not already in the rule. He also commanded that even if the rule said one thing, if the pope ordered something different, he was to be obeyed. He is the highest earthly authority of the brothers and sisters. In the end, the most important thing is to spend our lives trying to live the Gospel as it is taught by the Catholic Church. Everything we do and everything we are is accidental, not essential to being a Franciscan, unlike the Dominicans and the Jesuits where the priesthood, preaching, teaching, and studying is essential to them. This is their mission. This is their contribution to the Church. The Franciscan contribution to the Church is to become holy individuals. This is what Waldo could not understand and why he and Francis could never reconcile. Francis’ contribution to the Body was his personal holiness. Francis had a Trinitarian vision of the Church. Every man and woman exists in an eternal relationship with each other. As one is sanctified, so are the others, albeit slowly, yet truly.

Dominic, Francis and Ignatius had the same vision of the Trinitarian Church, with different missions to achieve within that Church. Waldo had a different vision. of the Church. He got into trouble when he becomes a parallel magisterium that tells the Ordinary Magisterium what it must do or not do, what it must believe or not believe. In Waldo’s vision, the Church is a democracy where the faithful dictate to the hierarchy. In the vision of Dominic, Francis and Ignatius, the Church is hierarchical where the laity has its role, the bishops have their role, the religious have their role, and the pope has his role. Together they co-exist as one Church, just as the three person in the Trinity are individuals, yet one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LaymanX]

The Franciscan contribution to the Church is to become holy individuals.

Would it be correct to say that a true Franciscan would never need to speak, write, or teach in the academic sense? I know that speaking, writing, and teaching are actions, and in theory, could be done in a Christlike manner. But the emphasis here would be on living a particular pattern of life that resembles the Passion of Jesus Christ, a holy life.

For example, an ideal scholastic would leave behind an excellent theological treatise, an ideal preacher would leave behind a wonderful piece of sermon, an ideal writer would leave behind a great devotional, an ideal monastic leader would leave behind a Rule, but an ideal Franciscan would leave behind a pattern of life. That is, their life would intentionally reflect the gospel to the minutest detail. Instead of teaching the Gospel through mediaries, the emphasis is laid upon teaching the Gospel by being the Gospel. Is this what you mean by “holy individuals?”

In His service,

Francis

 

[JReducation]

Would it be correct to say that a true Franciscan would never need to speak, write, or teach in the academic sense? I know that speaking, writing, and teaching are actions, and in theory, could be done in a Christlike manner. But the emphasis here would be on living a particular pattern of life that resembles the Passion of Jesus Christ, a holy life.

For example, an ideal scholastic would leave behind an excellent theological treatise, an ideal preacher would leave behind a wonderful piece of sermon, an ideal writer would leave behind a great devotional, an ideal monastic leader would leave behind a Rule, but an ideal Franciscan would leave behind a pattern of life. That is, their life would intentionally reflect the gospel to the minutest detail. Instead of teaching the Gospel through mediaries, the emphasis is laid upon teaching the Gospel by being the Gospel. Is this what you mean by “holy individuals?”

In His service,

Francis

You’re pretty close to Francis’ vision. The ideal son or daughter of St. Francis is one who strives, moment by moment, to live in communion with Christ as the Apostles lived in communion with him. That’s why it’s called an apostolic life. Some people use the terms apostolic and active interchangeably. They are not. An apostolic life is the life of an apostle. An apostle can be as active as Paul or as contemplative as John the Evangelist and anything else in between.

What the Franciscan shoots for is to live with Christ as the Apostles lived with him. This implies a life of constant contact with him. Prayer becomes the foundation upon which the brother or sister builds. Of course, prayer has many forms: the most noble is liturgy (Mass and Divine Office) and the most intimate is infused contemplation, which can only be reached through recollection: silence, lectio divina, silent prayer, prayer of contemplation and God’s gift of unitive prayer. In other words, you do not reach infused contemplation by wishing it. It’s not something that you can make happen. It’s something that you lay the groundwork for to allow the Spirit to do, if and when he wishes to do so. Eventually, we all reach infused contemplation in eternity. However, some people achieve it in life, such as Francis of Assisi and other mystics.

Our life of contact with the Master propels us, like it did the Apostles, to do two things: to conform to Christ in all things and to live in his love. The true Franciscan lives in the Pauline and Johanine dialectic. Every moment is lived at the full disposal of the Father, even if one has to submit to the pains caused by sin, as Christ submitted to the cross. Thus we conform to Christ, as Paul says. But the same time, every moment is lived in full knowledge of God’s love for us, remembering John’s final words before his death, “Beloved, love one another.” John was simply echoing Christ’s command, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Upon this, we build our brotherhood and we live in relationship with each other that it based on love and that seeks to love more each day. As the fraternity loves within itself, that love is carried beyond its boundaries. In other words, like any family, each member carries the family’s values wherever they go, but they are acquired within the heart of the home. The Franciscan learns to love and be loved within the heart of the fraternity. This eternal trust in God’s love becomes an autonomic value that goes with him or her wherever he or she serves.

So that the Franciscan, whether he’s a scholar, farmer, priest, cook, beggar, bishop, pope or husband, wife, friar, nun or sister, lives conforming to Christ and in his love, which is what the Holy Rule commands. The rest of the articles in the Rules of St. Francis (there are three, one for each order) are laws that keep people on track. The rule itself is one simple sentence.

“The rule of the Friars Minor is to live the Holy Gospel in obedience, without property and in chastity.” Everything that Francis writes beyond this are the “how to” live this rule. In his legislation, there is no boundary as to work. In fact, in the chapter on poverty, he clearly states that the brothers must work to earn their keep and that those who do not know how to work must learn to do so. ONLY when they do not receive enough from their labor, may they beg. There is a great myth about Francis the beggar. Francis begged only when there was no other way to eat. Those brothers or sisters who can work in the field of scholarship, must do so, because it is a legitimate way of living the life of poverty as the Holy Family lived it, as the Apostles lived it, and as the first Christians lived it. Francis quotes Paul’s admonition that those who do not work should not eat. He’s much less blunt than Paul. He explains the difference between those who are lazy and those who are impaired. But the idea is the same. The poor Christ, his family, his Apostles and his disciples worked. They depended on Divine Providence to provide them with the fruits of their labors and to provide for them when their labors yielded no fruit. Therefore, the Franciscan works without anxiety. Providence will provide.

 

[JReducation]

As to what kind of work he or she does, the sky is the limit. It depends on his or her gifts. We have Franciscans who a brain surgeons, housekeepers, theologians, philosophers, university professors, cooks, gardeners, teachers, poets, artists, priests, preachers, retreat masters, spiritual directors, administrators and more.

Like the Apostles, the Franciscan puts the fruit of his work at the feet of his brothers. For example, I have always been a university professor of theology. Whatever universities paid me or when I went out to deliver a talk, is brought home to the fraternity. It is handed over to the Guardian of the brotherhood, whose job it is to watch over the welfare of the brothers. He in turn, takes a portion of what each brings in and sends it to the regional Minister, whose job it is to watch over the needs of the brothers throughout the region. That minister may forward funds to fraternities that cannot make ends meet. Right now I’m disabled, because I have heart disease and cancer. I do not bring in much income. However, just like Christ and the Apostles, my brothers provide for the needs of our little family. We are only three in this house.

By placing myself in the hands of my brothers, I live out the Johanine admonition “To live in his love,” and by accepting my limitations, I try to live the Pauline admonition, “conform yourself to Christ.” It is in absolute obedience and fidelity to this Evangelical dialectic, guided by the Church and the example of our Holy Father, Francis that each of us moves closer to Gospel perfection, on step at a time. We’re not all at the same point on the path. The road is long and the way of the cross is uphill. Our obedience does not consist in achieving perfection, but in working toward the perfection of love that Christ revealed to the world through the cross. Not only did he submit to the will of the Father and accepted the cross, the Father showed us where that love came from by allowing the soldier to pierce his Son’s side to reveal is Sacred Heart. This is the Gospel Life. This is the part that we can will and that we can work on . . . always in the knowledge that it is not we who live, but Christ who lives within us. Eventually, like Christ, the Father will raise us up.

To live the Gospel is to replicate the story in our own lives, not one passage at a time, not one chapter or one character; but the entire story from the Annunciation to the life of the early Christians, along with the admonitions of the Epistolarians, who are really the first commentators on the Gospel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LaymanX]

As to what kind of work he or she does, the sky is the limit. It depends on his or her gifts. We have Franciscans who a brain surgeons, housekeepers, theologians, philosophers, university professors, cooks, gardeners, teachers, poets, artists, priests, preachers, retreat masters, spiritual directors, administrators and more.

Thank you for taking the time to share. I believe I had a picture of a “beggar” monk who renounced many of those prestigious positions such as surgeons, professors, lawyers, and engineers. The kind of labor I had in my mind were in-house work (e.g., farming, cooking, laundry, cleaning dishes, sweeping, gardening, hosting visitors, and taking care of the elder monks). At best, I pictured Franciscans working in public places where they could preach through their actions (e.g., coffee shops, restaurants, train stations, post office, grocery stores, etc.). Then, whenever bishops or priests from various diocese needed assistance, they would be at their full disposal to do whatever needs to be done. Perhaps I was being a bit ideal and misinformed.

Regards,

Francis

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for taking the time to share. I believe I had a picture of a “beggar” monk who renounced many of those prestigious positions such as surgeons, professors, lawyers, and engineers. The kind of labor I had in my mind were in-house work (e.g., farming, cooking, laundry, cleaning dishes, sweeping, gardening, hosting visitors, and taking care of the elder monks). At best, I pictured Franciscans working in public places where they could preach through their actions (e.g., coffee shops, restaurants, train stations, post office, grocery stores, etc.). Then, whenever bishops or priests from various diocese needed assistance, they would be at their full disposal to do whatever needs to be done. Perhaps I was being a bit ideal and misinformed.

Regards,

Francis

The colors are mine. The red is really a very good description of the typical labor done by monks. Franciscans are not monks. Franciscan men are either friars or seculars. Both do whatever needs to be done, each according to his gifts. Being physician or a theologian is not necessarily a prestigious occupation when it’s done as a service to the people of God. The friar who is a brain surgeon is really a brother who serves his brothers and sisters caring for them and trying to save their lives. He’s not in it for the money or the prestige. In fact, the latest ethics advisor added to the current administration’s committee on medial ethics is a Franciscan Brother who is a Doctor of Medicine and a Doctor of Moral Theology. His name was submitted to the President and accepted by the White House. Apparently, the name was submitted with the title, Doctor. When the man showed up in a habit, it blew everyone’s mind away.

The blue is inappropriate for monks, but very appropriate for friars. When I say that we do these things and more, those ministries are included in the more. They are called street ministry and social outreach ministries. They also include soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

As to availability to the bishops, the Franciscans are a religious family of Pontifical Right. The chain of command is the Pope, Francis, the rule, the General Chapter, the constitutions, the Minister General, the Regional Minister and the local Guardian. Notice that the bishop is not in that chain. When a bishop needs help, he applies to the Regional Minister for assistance. He and the minister define the parameters of the ministry to be done and the time frame, if there is one. Sometimes it’s an indefinate commitment and sometimes it’s for a fixed number of years or even months.

Those friars assigned to work under that bishop, must submit to his authority in all matters pertaining to the ministry. If the bishop says that you may not preach, you may not do so. If he says that you may not preach on this subject, because he wants you to cover this other, you do that. You obey the bishop by extension. In other words, Francis commands that you obey any bishop for whom you work and that you leave anytime the bishop wishes you to leave or be silent. Also, you ask the local bishop for permission to move into his diocese, even if you’re not going to work under him. We are not free to buy a house on Main Street and move in. Every town belongs to a diocese. Before we buy that house, we must get the bishop’s permission and we must explain why we are moving into it. If he disapproves, we may not enter his jurisdiction. He must give it his blessing. That’s part of obedience to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Radical]

Hello Radical;

Hello again

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.

apparently the (now) bold bit in this last sentence of yours simply cannot be repeated too often

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 …

What might be lost on some of the Catholics who are inclined to heap praise on Francis is that after 300 years of his influence, the Catholic Church was still in desperate need of reform. In fact, the need may have been greater than when Francis started. In contrast, with the appearance of Protestantism, the CC finally had no choice but to substantially reform itself. What seems to have (largely) caused the CC to reform, was the loss of its status as the sole state religion in the west and its ability to control dissent. Once it couldn’t quash dissent and had to compete for souls and for government endorsement, it had no option but to clean up its act. As such, it seems that Francis’s obedience may not have worked to stop the decline into ever greater corruption…it may have only slowed the process.

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…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.

Well here is the thing, there is an undeniable difference between the doctrine of the early church and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. That difference is why those such as Newman proposed the idea of “development of doctrine”. One can look at the difference and (like Newman) presume that all Catholic doctrines were present at the start (in a simpler form) and then only underwent a legitimate development, or one can conclude that innovation and error was introduced. Notwithstanding the almost endless repetition of the “CC can’t err”, theme I’ll continue to believe the latter (understanding that you believe the former).

Waldo, Luther and others today are Johny come lately who continue to try and change what God has already revealed 2000 years ago.

…or they are trying to return to what was revealed 2000 years ago

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”.

Again, the reasoning from a Protestant point of view is that the CC of Francis’s day had indeed changed the original deposit of faith (Catholic assertions to the contrary notwithstanding) That is why there was a need for something other than mere obedience…the moral corruption was evidence that the CC wasn’t walking with the Spirit. No Protestant is trying to reinvent God’s revelation, instead he is trying to eliminate error from God’s revelation.

It seems that the intended purpose of this thread is to declare that Francis’s obedience was good is all respects and that any comment by me only leads to a chorus of further declarations that “the CC can’t err.” There doesn’t seem to be much of a point to my continued involvement here…I am sure I’ll see you on another thread. Cheers.

peace be with you

and also with you

 

[Radical]

Like the Apostles, the Franciscan puts the fruit of his work at the feet of his brothers.

It has been interesting reading your explanations of the Franciscan life…thanks

Right now I’m disabled, because I have heart disease and cancer.

My wife has had cancer…we are now dealing with a recurrence…may your fight go well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Cheers

 

[LaymanX]

The colors are mine. The red is really a very good description of the typical labor done by monks. Franciscans are not monks. Franciscan men are either friars or seculars. Both do whatever needs to be done, each according to his gifts. Being physician or a theologian is not necessarily a prestigious occupation when it’s done as a service to the people of God. The friar who is a brain surgeon is really a brother who serves his brothers and sisters caring for them and trying to save their lives. He’s not in it for the money or the prestige.

I did not know there was a distinction between friars and monks. I knew seculars would be diversified. And I agree that the professional jobs are not necessarily prestigious, although in Asia it usually is, and neither do they necessarily mean they were purely seeking monetary comfort. I suppose, I was just picturing what an ideal friar would be like, or rather, even if it is anachronistic, how would St Francis have lived today if he stuck to his ideals.

In Him,

Francis

 

[DebChris]

I did not know there was a distinction between friars and monks. I knew seculars would be diversified. And I agree that the professional jobs are not necessarily prestigious, although in Asia it usually is, and neither do they necessarily mean they were purely seeking monetary comfort. I suppose, I was just picturing what an ideal friar would be like, or rather, even if it is anachronistic, how would St Francis have lived today if he stuck to his ideals.

In Him,

Francis

Benadictine monks take a vow of stability. Generally speaking they will stay in one place.
St. Francis rejected his father’s wealth to live a life of gospel poverty.
Poverty can be both physical and spiritual. Spiritual poverty, regardless of material wealth, means placing our trust totally in the hands of God. The modern day example of gospel poverty with which most people are familiar is Mother Teresa of Calcutta as she worked with the poorest of the poor. All of us are called to a simplicity of life rather than a pursuit of riches or prestige.
When I read about St. Francis admonishing his membership for building libraries, I need to remind myself that St. Francis lived before the invention of the printing press. He lived during a time when books were expensive, and a sign of personal wealth.

 

[JReducation]

I did not know there was a distinction between friars and monks. I knew seculars would be diversified. And I agree that the professional jobs are not necessarily prestigious, although in Asia it usually is, and neither do they necessarily mean they were purely seeking monetary comfort. I suppose, I was just picturing what an ideal friar would be like, or rather, even if it is anachronistic, how would St Francis have lived today if he stuck to his ideals.

In Him,

Francis

Monks follow the Rule of St. Benedict. They make two vows: obedience and stability. Obviously if they obey the Rule of St. Benedict, they will live chaste and poor lives. Also, a monk it attached to the monastery where he makes vows. Some branches of the Benedictine Order, such as Cistercians, Trappists and Camaldolese never leave the monastery. The original Benedictines have varying degrees of enclosure. But all of them belong to the monastery where they entered. This is their stability. No matter where they go, they return to the same monastery and they are submissive to the Abbot of that house, no other house. If a house is large enough, it can be erected to an abbey.

Friars do not make a vow of stability. We are transfered from place to place and we owe obedience to the local Guardian. Also, do not have Abbots or Priors. Francis did not want any one else to be called Father. He is the only Father of the Franciscan family. Nor is anyone to be called Prior or the First. Every house is led by a friar called the Guardian. His role is to enusre take care of the spiritual and material needs of his brothers. He is obeyed without questioning. However, he may only direct what Francis commanded, what is in the Rule, what is in the constitutions, what the friars decide in a chapter and what the Church commands. Outside of that, he may not command. Guardians are not like Abbots. An abbot has no superior above him. A Guardian has a Regional Minister who guides him. The Regional Ministers have a General Minister who guides them. The General Minister is guided by the chapter and the pope.

Because friars do not make a vow of stability, we are itinerant. When you enter the community you can be assigned to any house where you are needed or to a new foundation. You be sent to another country.

Most monks are priests. That is not the case with friars. Many friars are both, priest and friar. However, for a friar to be ordained a priest, the Regional Minister, who is the major superior, must give him permission. If he denies the permission the friar remains a member of the order until his death, but he is not ordained. This has nothing to do with studies. There are non-ordained friars who have doctorates in ministry or theology and are qualified to be pators, confessors and preachers. But Christ speaks through Francis and his successors. He calls to Holy Orders those who must be called for the good of their soul. When you enter the Franciscans, you enter to live the Gospel as St. Francis lived it. You do not need to be a Franciscan to be a priest. You can certainly have both callings, the call to be a brother and the call to be a priest. In that case, you would be an ordained friar. But you may have one call, to be a brother. You would be a non-clerical friar. The rights and duties of all the friars are exactly the same. There is no difference. The difference is in ministry. The ordained friar is a brother who serves his brothers and sisters through sacramental ministry. However, his first obligation is always to his brothers. If there is a conflict between saying mass in a parish and praying the Liturgy of the Hours with his brothers, obedience requires that he pray with his brothers and celebrate that mass at another time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Benadictine monks take a vow of stability. Generally speaking they will stay in one place.
St. Francis rejected his father’s wealth to live a life of gospel poverty. snip ]
When I read about St. Francis admonishing his membership for building libraries, I need to remind myself that St. Francis lived before the invention of the printing press. He lived during a time when books were expensive, and a sign of personal wealth.

One has to understand that Francis had to renounce his father’s wealth and title. Francis was the oldest of seven children. Therefore, he was the Bernadone heir apparent. In those days, unless you publicly renounced your name, you were legally bound to take up your father’s legal and moral duties. You became the head of the family and the family business, be it governing or whatever your father did. This was why Francis’ actions hurt his father so much. Peter Bernadone was terrified that his heir had lost his mind and would lead the family into ruin once he was dead. Peter’s fears were well grounded. On top of that, it seems that he was an explosive man too. This just made things more complicated.

Franciscan poverty is both material and spiritual. Monks can own property as a body, not individually. Franciscans do not own property individually or coporately. To own a piece of property, as a community, the Regional Minister must ger permission to purchase the property. When the property is no longer needed it must be surrendered to the Church.

Friars must ask for everything we need. We do not have money, bank accounts, insurance policies, personal cars, pesonal computers, TVs in our rooms or anything other than the habit, a few books, and whatever we need for the ministry that we do. When we are transferred, everything except our clothing and some books go with us. The Guardian of the house that you’re leaving can ask you to leave everything in your room and you must obey. I was asked to do that once. I was told to take only my clothing. I had to leave all the books that I had purchased to get my doctorate degree in theology. They were in a book case in my cell. I was transferred and the Guardian said that the books had to stay. You obey without question, just as Christ obeyed the Father without questioning him. You say yes, just like Mary said yes.

Finally, the issue with library has to be explained. The rule did not say whether or not the friars could have libraries. It had nothing to do with the printing press or books being more expensive. Francis had gone on mission to the Middle East and was gone for over a year. The Vicar, Br. Elias, had a new chapel built and the old chapel turned into a library. Elias did it, because the only model that he had of religious life was that of the monks. Monks had libraries. Elias had been a diocesan priest before he joined the order. He was trained by monks. Since the rule did not say that they could not have libraries and since Br. Elias was Francis’ Vicar, this made him second in command and he had the authority to erect a library.

This is where things get distorted. Some people like to think that Francis was so in love with poverty that he did not want his brothers to spend money on books. That was not the case. In fact, Francis had given Anthony of Padua permission to teach theology to the Friars in Padua. Francis’ discomfort was that the friars were living like monks. Francis never wanted the monastic life for himself or his sons. He wanted his movement to be a brotherhood without walls. He shunned everything that was too monastic or too clerical. He did not want his movement to be an order of priests either.

The idea of having a library in the house was one that was common to monks and priests, not to itinerant brothers. If you had houses with libraries and other amenities, it made it more difficult to move from place to place. In effect, you were becoming stable without making the vow of stability. Friars are not to be stable in that sense. That’s why he objected to the library. It had turned the friary into a monastery and the friars into monks. He went bonkers.

The problem has always been, that there are new situations that come up that the rule does not address. The friars have to guess what Francis would want us to do. We dialogue, vote and then write more regulations. These regulations we call Constitutions. They go along with the Rule. They cannot trump the Rule. Whatever is in the Rule must be followed. What is not in the Rule must be decided in a gathering called Chapter. This way, no single person can command. Even a friar who is a bisop, such as Cardinal O’Malley and Archbishop Chaput, must remain faithful to the Rule and the tradition of the order.

This is why I say that there are few similarities between Waldo and Francis. Waldo never built such a family and certainly did not reform religious life, nor did he manage to bring the monastic life, the secular life, the laity, clergy and the hierarchy together into one family. Francis did. We have male hermits and we have the Poor Clares who live a monastic life. We have the largest secular order in the world. There are over 800,000 men and women who solemnly and publicly profess to live according to the rule of St. Francis, while living in the secular world. We have priests, bishops, cardinals, popes and non-clerics who are friars and live as brothers. Each one brings his gifts.

We are not all beggers, nor are we all priests, nor are we all scholars. However, this entire family follows, obeys and looks to one father, Brother Francis, to show us how to live the Gospel perfectly and how to serve and obey the Church as Christ served and obeyed the Father.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LaymanX]

This is why I say that there are few similarities between Waldo and Francis. Waldo never built such a family and certainly did not reform religious life, nor did he manage to bring the monastic life, the secular life, the laity, clergy and the hierarchy together into one family. Francis did.

Lol. I was waiting for the “Waldo” comment to arise! I still have to regretfully remain agnostic in regards to judging Waldo’s intentions. Believe me, I have serious issues with the Waldensians, but Waldo himself cannot be blamed for everything. I believe the pope, the bishops, and his superior should take some responsibility for the problems that ensued. Looking back today, things look black and white, but at that time, things were much more complex. Then again, I cannot fault you for taking the hard stance you do, given that you already live, breath, and move in a tradition that will not and cannot consider a world where the questioning of papal infallibility is a remote possiblity. I would be like that towards people who doubt the existence of an external reality, other minds, the past, etc.

One day I may be in the place where you are, but for now, I remain agnostic to the majority of the excommunications placed upon by popes on many of the single “heretical” individuals of the past (e.g., Nestorious, Eutyches, Michael Cerularius, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, et. al.). I surely do have issues with the schools of thought and religious orders that grew out of the situation in which they were active, but I must refrain from judging the intentions of various individuals. A lawyer may need to make expedient judgments for time constraints (and other practical/political considerations), but a shepherd of a flock should be a lot more patient before executing excommunications. I think the dream of full reconciliation can only occur when both sides take responsiblity for the tragedies of the past and work towards holy compromises (without sacrificing truth, of course). Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are glimmering examples of that. I have high hopes for the future Full Communion of all apostolic churches.

However, I don’t know about placing infallibility on the actions of some of the popes and his bishops of antiquity. But who knows, I may see things in a new light after more extensive study into all the decisions made in the Ecumenical Concils. For me humility is more important than obedience (although both seem to be two sides of the same coin). From what I have read so far (perhaps bad sources?), some of the past popes and the leaders who colluded with them seem to lack the virtue of humility, and therefore, I question the infallibility of the communal decisions. Nothing is set in stone for me yet.

All the best,

Francis

 

[PbloPicasso]

 

[JReducation]

Francis:

First, let me tell you that you carry the name of one of the most perfect Christians in human history. Probably Vincent de Paul and Mother Teresa would be his equals. We know, for a fact, that both built on his spirituality. I just thought I’d throw that out there, for whatever it’s worth.

I think that you will find that Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits, better than most Catholics, understand the difficulties that a non-Catholic has wrapping their head around infallibility. It’s not because we’re nicer than other Catholics. It’s simply that we have an extensive history of missionary work, interaction with non-Catholics and non-Christians, and our founders struck a balance between fidelity to the Catholic Church and patience with non-Catholics.

Francis and his offspring approach papal infallibility from two angles: faith and reason. Actually, we approach it in that order. Faith enlightens reason. We believe that Christ meant what he said when he told Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his Church. We take Christ at his word. Reason tells us to look at the early Church and those first generations of Christians. We repeatedly find the Fathers explaining and asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his authority to bind and unbind. We see the earliest Christian community gathered around Peter and the Apostles. Peter’s name is always singled out. Despite Paul’s fame and endeavor to spread the faith, when speaking about the Apostles, the early Christians always single out Peter. He had a place of primacy in their life of faith. The dogma of infallibility was defined in Vatican I, but the belief had been part of the Christian tradition from the first generation of Jewish Christians and later the Gentile Christians embraced it too.

One also has to understand what it means. This is what Vatican I tried to do. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are also trying to do. Historically, the Pontiff exercises several layers of authority. Infallibility does not apply to all of them. However, the fact that the various domains of papal authority are not covered by infallibility does not mitigate his primacy and authority. Francis had a very simple, but reasonable approach. A parent is not infallible. However, a parent is still to be honored, loved and obeyed, unless he commands one to commit a sin. Francis also makes a very important distinction between sin and mistake. There are actions that are wrong, because they are bad choices, but not sinful. One of the examples with which Francis grappled was the relationship between Church and state during his time. He never challenges either or tells them that their relationship is wrong and that they need to clarify their boundaries. But he does something very interesting. When he founded his third order, the Secular Brothers and Sisters of Penance, today known as the Secular Franciscans, he commanded that they would never bear arms for any state. He also commanded that they would only pledge allegiance to the state in those matters where the state submitted to the moral teachings of the Gospel. To this day, when an American Secular Franciscan recites the Pledge of Allegiance, there is a condition in that pledge. They are not morally bound to comply with any law that violates moral law. Nor may they place any civil law above moral law, when they are in conflict. Finally, they may not contradict the authority of the local bishop in favor of the law of the state. While the bishop may be making a mistake, the bishop’s authority comes from the Holy Apostles. The state’s authority is given to it by God with restrictions. The authority of the state is to protect its citizens and to guarantee their welfare and freedoms. It is not within the realm of the state to pass laws without consulting the moral code of the Gospel. Francis understood the difference between infallibility and authority. Authority is not always infallible, but it does not cease to be authority.

Another interesting perspective in Francis’ theology is his vision of sin. While Francis certainly believed in the primacy of conscience, as evidenced by his statement that one may never do what is dangerous to one’s soul. He also taught that God plants his law in human conscience, but man must work to understand that law. To understand that law, man must look to the teachings of the Church on all matters of faith and morals. Observe that he does not include discipline in this teaching. Faith = dogma and morals = law. Disciplines = governance. The latter could be changed according to the will of the Pontiff and it could even be mistaken. However, Francis places obedience as the highest of virtues.

 

[JReducation]

As you have well said, humility and obedience are two sides of the same coin. If we look at the virtues as a three-sided pyramid, the pyramid would be humility, obedience, and poverty. Only a man who sees himself as he really is can obey. Only a man who is willing to let go of his personal opinions and self-importance, can be humble. These triad must be cultivated. It does not happen overnight. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that anyone will be a master of such profound spiritual wealth without much prayer, fasting and self-sacrifice. From our Franciscan perspective, we understand the humanity involved in the drama of Church history. Understanding the humanity does not require that we justify the errors. However, it does prohibit that we judge the state of the soul of the actors on this stage. Francis was very faithful to Christian tradition in this regard. You can only judge the good and the holy in a person, not the sin. You can point to actioins that are sinful. But you may never accuse someone of being culpable of sin. We can point to an act and to the person who committed the act. We say that the person is culpable of the act. Are they morally culpable? Only God knows.

This brings us back to the question of infallibility. Faith tells us that Jesus would never allow his Church or the Apostles to teach moral or doctrinal error. Reason tells us that there is no historical evidence that they have ever taught moral or doctrinal error. Reason tells us that they have made mistakes in judgment. That they are personally culpable for some very grave actions. But we also see, that nowhere in the history of the Catholic Church has there ever been a command to embrace an immoral law as a good or embrace a dogma that denies the Glory of God or his desire to save humanity. There is the separation between the doctrine of infallibility and the reality of errors in judgment and errors in disciplines. This is possible, because judgment and disciplines are of human creation. Moral law and doctrine is of Divine Revelation. God does not micromanage. Therefore, man will make mistakes in governance and discipline. Man will make mistakes in his dealings with other people. Reason tells us that this has happened. The part that Glod reserves for himself is the protection of moral truth and doctrinal truth.

For example, when we say that we believe in the Eucharistic presence of Christ, it is not a fabrication of human thought. It is a truth that was revealed to the Apostles, which they shared with their disciples and along the journey it has been explored and explained in great detail. But the doctrine itself, “This is my Body” comes from Jesus. The words, “Do this in memory of me,” come from Jesus. “We have handed down to you what we have received” comes from Paul in his discourse on the Eucharist. What the Fathers did was to explain it for the later generations. After them others have come along and explained how and why, but the what, the Eucharistic presence, has its origins in Revelation. It is what the first generation Christians believed and handed down. It was handed to them by the Apostles. Going back to Francis and infallibility, Francis understood that these Revealed truths were not up for discussion, because God does not make mistakes.

Francis also understood that authority has rights and subordinates have duties. Even when authority makes a mistake, in matters of governance and discipline, it does not mitigate the rights of authority. This is where the triad comes into play. The truly Evangelical person, submits, because he acknowledges that he or she is not in authority (humility) and he surrenders his desire to enforce his opinion or his point of view (poverty), because this is how Christ behaved before Pilate. The universal call to holiness is the call to conform to the Crucified Christ in hope of the Resurrection. This is the theology that was handed down to us by Francis of Assisi, which was handed down to him by the first 1200 years of Christian Tradition. However, it is not something that is easily understood, not even by Catholics and certainly not easy to live by. For me, it’s a daily challenge that I take, one step at a time. My prayer is that of Augustine “I believe, help my unbelief.”

I do not judge Waldo’s soul and neither did our Holy Father Francis. But I can look back and see major differences between the spirituality of the two men and I have to say that Waldo’s spirituality lacks the depth of Francis’ spirituality. I believe this is what made Francis so attractive and why he remains attractive 800 years later. In his very simple approach faith and the Church, there are layers of profound theological and spiritual insight that we don’t see in Waldo.

Again, welcome to Franciscan theology 101. This is just scratching the surface.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF