Pope John XXII and Franciscans

[dominikus28]

I was playing Assassin’s Creed II and I read one of the (anti-Catholic) descriptions of one of the buildings (Basilica of Santa Croce) and it mentioned that in 1322 Pope John XXII made it illegal to say Christ had no property or something like that. Because the Franciscans focused on poverty and Pope john XXII said that Christ in fact did possess property (and in the game this explains why a Franciscan church was so posh). I was wondering what the deal was with this conflict. Did Christ have possessions? If not, why does the Church have such rich vestments for Bishops and such richly decorated Churches? I’m just wondering where the error is and whether it was just a case of a bad pope or not.

 

[JohnDamian]

The major problem was that at that time the “mendicant” orders were relatively new. These orders of friars survided by the charity of others and had no possessions themselves; they argued against Pope John that the apostles had no possessions. It was because of this that a number of Fransiscans were excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic; their number included the Minister General of the Fransiscans; Michael of Cesena; William of Ockham in particular; and a few others.

The argument was really because the emerging mendicant orders were opposed to owning property; and the Secular Clergy; and Monastics who owned lands and property percieved this as a threat; the ultimate breakdown was when the Fransiscans called the Pope a heretic and fled from France.

The general argument was as follows; the Secular Clergy and Monastics believed Christ and his followers had Property; and the Mendicants beleived Christ and his Disciples lived off Charity.

It is clear from the Gospels that Christ and his Disciples had property which they held in common; as well as the early Church. In regards to the “spending” of the public funds on nice things;

John 12 – *Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus 2 and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, “Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages 3 and given to the poor?” He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” *

 

[ChadS]

I can remember watching the movie “The Name of the Rose” based upon Umberto Eco’s novel where a group of Franciscans came together to argue over what, if any, and how much property the Franciscans could own. One of the monks said something to the effect of “Surely we can all agree that Christ, at least, owned a purse.” This of course caused the group to erupt in even louder and more heated debates.

ChadS

 

[Petergee]

We make our churches, priests’ vestments, chalices, etc. as “posh” as we possibly can, to give glory to God (not to the priest who happens to be saying Mass in the church in those vestments at the moment!) Just as God commanded the Israelites to embellish his Temple with the best and finest things including gold and precious stones.

And yes as the Gospel verse quoted above makes clear, Christ and the Apostles did have possessions, at least havuing a purse in common.

 

[jimcintosh]

@JohnDamian has it right.

This was basically an internal struggle within the Franciscan order (which, at the time, had not yet separated out into the Order of Friars Minor, OFM Conventuals and OFM Capuchins).

Francis stressed the poverty of Jesus, particularly at his birth — being born in a stable — and his death — dying naked on a cross. He therefore tried to live a life of complete poverty and put this in his Rule for his followers, the Franciscans. In the century after Francis’s death, however, the necessities of ministry (much less for things like caring for elderly and ill friars) had pushed the main part of the order into having houses and attached gardens. Some friars, however, particularly those living in hermitages, decried this as a violation of the Rule, saying that Jesus had been poor throughout his life. This caused internal dissent within the order.

Different popes tried to deal with this conflict in different ways. Some were more sympathetic to the reformers, generally referred to as the “Spiritual Franciscans” (and, later, as the Fraticelli); others to the main part of the order. But, regardless, the internal struggle continued.

John XXII decided to stop this thing once and for all. In November 1323, in his papal bull Cum inter nonnullos, he ruled that Jesus had possessions and made it an article of faith. He then unleashed the recently-created inquisition on the Spirituals. (In fact, the inquisitor — Michael Le Moine — was himself a Franciscan, meaning this was very much an internal conflict within the order but that external means were being used to quell it.) As a result of the inquiries of the inquisition, some Spirituals recanted and many others were burned at the stake for the crime of heresy.

This effective muted the Spirituals, but not the need for reform. A later reform group was given the green light and became what is now the OFM (breaking from what is now the Conventual Franciscans). A later reform group (coming mainly from the Conventuals but drawing from both the OFM and the Conventuals) were the Capuchin Franciscans.

To investigate this further, you can read David Burr’s book The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century After Saint Francis available at Amazon and at many libraries.

This gradual accumulation of wealth followed by a call for reform is a constant thread in the 800-year-old history of the Franciscan order.

 

[Clevelander]

I think I can remember reading somewhere that St. Francis himself, who was a restorer of chuches and chapels, taught that we should lavish the sacred liturgy and things pertaining to it with the best materials we have. Not, as has been pointed out above, in order to glorify the celebrants, but rather to give due glory to God.

Am I fabricating that recollection, or is there some truth to this? If anyone could confirm that, I would be grateful.

 

[Petergee]

Not to mention that St Francis’ first act after his conversion of heart was to refurbish and richly decorate a church.

 

[Prieldedi]

I was playing Assassin’s Creed II and I read one of the (anti-Catholic) descriptions of one of the buildings (Basilica of Santa Croce) and it mentioned that in 1322 Pope John XXII made it illegal to say Christ had no property or something like that. Because the Franciscans focused on poverty and Pope john XXII said that Christ in fact did possess property (and in the game this explains why a Franciscan church was so posh). I was wondering what the deal was with this conflict. Did Christ have possessions? If not, why does the Church have such rich vestments for Bishops and such richly decorated Churches? I’m just wondering where the error is and whether it was just a case of a bad pope or not.

There is no error. In fact, there is a prophesy about the “opulence” of the Catholic Church:

“For thus says the LORD of hosts: One moment yet, a little while, and I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will come in, And I will fill this house with glory, says the LORD of hosts. MINE IS THE SILVER AND MINE THE GOLD, SAYS THE LORD OF HOSTS. GREATER WILL BE THE FUTURE GLORY OF THIS HOUSE THAN THE FORMER, SAYS THE LORD OF HOSTS; And in this place I will give you peace, says the LORD of hosts.” Haggai 2:6-9

After reading those verses, who would accuse GOD of opulence?

You can also check Exodus 25:1-40 and read the specific instructions God gave to Moses as to how His sanctuary was to be constructed. The word GOLD appears 17 times in those verses. Remember, GOD is the same yesterday, today and forever. There can be nothing less than the very best for GOD… MINE IS THE SILVER AND MINE THE GOLD, SAYS THE LORD OF HOSTS…

Many of those elegant churches were built with the donations of countless of Catholics. They gave away properties and money for the construction of the churches. And to top it all, you can see in those Churches the work many of the greatest artisans the world has ever known, who dedicated their best work for GOD and the Church. We must not forget that the art represents what the soul wants to manifest, and those artists manifested their faith. Their art has also been an inspiration for many to seek the Lord.

 

[JReducation]

The issue was not with the Franciscan alone. This was an issue with the “spiritualist” movement of the time, of which there were many Franciscans.

Francis never taught that Christ had no property. Francis built his order upon obedience, not poverty. We were to obey Christ in all things. The scriptures quote Christ saying that one must leave everything and follow him. Later it says that the man who wants to save his life must be willing to lose it. Then he says that it eaiser for the camel to go through the eye of the needle.

It is out of obedience to the Gospel that Francis embraces Lady Poverty. The counsel of poverty is lived out by Christ in the scriptures. His is born without the wordly attachments and dies poor on a cross. This is the poverty that Francis embraced and that he wrote into our rule.

The heresies of the spiritualists went beyond the evangelical revelations. They tried to impress upon people that it was a sin to own anything. This was contrary to the Gospel and to what Francis taught. It is one thing to avoid opulence and another thing not to own anything. The choice to give up the right to own property must be a free choice to be virtuous. However, the choice not to do so is not a sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF