The Perfect Joy of St. Francis

[JReducation]

The Clunaic tradition? Sounds fascinating but I’ve never heard of it and of course I’ll keep watching this thread and maybe buy some books about St Francis and the Franciscan tradition.

Indeed it is a shame that Tradition has sometimes been limited to doctrine and liturgy, the Catholic Tradition is far more broad than that encompassing ascetic and monastic traditions as well private devotions such as Devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Mystic tradition. I do hope that I and others can learn more about that not only on this forum but also through classics of catholic literature.

The problem, if it can be called a problem, is that the term Traditional Catholicism and Traditionalist has been reduced to represent a movement to preserve the Tridentine Form of the Mass, to debate certain points made by Vatican II and opposition to much of what has come after Vatican II. When you reduce terms to define movements, you lose much.

In this case, Traditional Catholicism has lost the entire concept of Catholic Traditions that gave form, shape, expression and rules to the spiritual life. These were not meant for religious. Many of them began with lay movements, such as the Franciscan School. Francis was a layman and so were 9 out of the 10 founding members of the Franciscans. Only one was a priest and not very influential in the order. However, Br. Giles is now a Blessed and became so by the way that he followed the Franciscan Tradition.

These traditions are essential to the Tradition. The Church has said that they are not accidental and that without them, the Church loses her identity. These traditions, whether they began as lay movements and became religious or began as religious and later included laity, in either case, they were given to the Church for the good of the body and they should not be dismissed or their importance ignored.

In other words, it is very wrong to believe that because I don’t live in a Carmelite parish, the Carmelite tradition of prayer, liturgy, and theology has nothing to do with me. The fact is that it has a great deal to do with the entire Church, as do the Franciscan tradition, Dominican, Augustinian, Cluniac and others.

Simple example, many people are very upset when there don’t find communion rails in churches. When you tell them that Franciscans never installed communion rails in our chapels or churches. If they were there because the bishop wanted them or the church was built that way, fine. If they were not present or if we were given carte blanche to build the church or chapel according to our tradition, there would be no communion rails or there would be no Gregorian chant at mass. Other forms of music would be used.

People are quick to dismiss this as not relevant to them, either because they see Franciscans as a fringe group or because they are not involved with a Franciscan parish. However, they are missing the point. The point is to understand why Francis did not include these elements in the liturgy and why the Church allowed this tradition to continue. If we understand why he did not include these elements and why the Church exempted him and his brothers from it, then we will understand that things are not as grave as we think and that there is no error in not having these things, because there have always been significant portions of the Church that never had these elements and yet produced great saints, both religious and lay. Their focus was not on the elements, but on the faith formation. If we pay attention to why Francis did not have these elements, we find that he is grounded in the Dessert Fathers.

The same thing would apply to the anger that people feel about “blurring the lines between the priest and the laity.” If we study Benedictine Tradition, which is an essential tradition to the spiritual life of the Church, Benedict insisted on blurring these lines. No one entered a monastery to be a priest. Monks who were priests were never to stand out in any way. The focus was that the ordained monk led his brothers in offering the sacrifice. The key word here is brothers. There is an entire theology that Benedict is teaching about the relationship between the ordained and the lay. The ordained is both servant and brother. Francis picked up on this concept and objected to distinctions between priests and laity. While he promoted and defended reverence for priests and the priesthood, regardless of the sins of the of the priest. There is another interesting theological truth that is being taught. In Franciscan tradition, the priest and the laity should not be segregated as mass. At the same time, the laity must venerate, obey and treat the priest with great reverence, even if he’s the greatest sinner. In modern Traditionalist, we’ve turned this around. We want a distinction between priest and laity. We also want the freedom to bash a priest every time he sins. This is contrary to the theology that was introduced into the Church by such men as Benedict and Francis.

The reason that they protected the sinful priest was because bashing is never charitable. It comes from anger, resentment, a desire to control the other person, frustration and pride. Whereas fraternal correction is never violent, even when it is firm.

These are just some important contributions that these traditions have made to Catholic Tradition. Unless we understand them, we will be poorer for it. It is not enough to attend mass piously. We bring to the mass our lives. Therefore, we must work on building our spiritual life in line with one of the schools approved by the Church.

There is more, but that’st gist of it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

Hello Br. JR,

I’m sure you won’t mind if I disagree with some of the below.

In this case, Traditional Catholicism has lost the entire concept of Catholic Traditions that gave form, shape, expression and rules to the spiritual life.

I totally agree. As I’m learning more about Catholicism I am seeing how rich the tradition is.

Simple example, many people are very upset when there don’t find communion rails in churches. When you tell them that Franciscans never installed communion rails in our chapels or churches. If they were there because the bishop wanted them or the church was built that way, fine. If they were not present or if we were given carte blanche to build the church or chapel according to our tradition, there would be no communion rails or there would be no Gregorian chant at mass. Other forms of music would be used.

People are quick to dismiss this as not relevant to them, either because they see Franciscans as a fringe group or because they are not involved with a Franciscan parish. However, they are missing the point. The point is to understand why Francis did not include these elements in the liturgy and why the Church allowed this tradition to continue. If we understand why he did not include these elements and why the Church exempted him and his brothers from it, then we will understand that things are not as grave as we think and that there is no error in not having these things, because there have always been significant portions of the Church that never had these elements and yet produced great saints, both religious and lay. Their focus was not on the elements, but on the faith formation. If we pay attention to why Francis did not have these elements, we find that he is grounded in the Dessert Fathers.

I don’t know if some people are dismissive of Franciscans. I’m obviously not. However, just because St Francis believes it should be that way, doesn’t mean it should be that way for everyone.

The liturgical rubrics you listed above are not modern inventions. I am sure those who instituted them were also grounded in the Desert Fathers.

The same thing would apply to the anger that people feel about “blurring the lines between the priest and the laity.” If we study Benedictine Tradition, which is an essential tradition to the spiritual life of the Church, Benedict insisted on blurring these lines.

You’re speaking of Religious right? Religious are not your average laity.

No one entered a monastery to be a priest. Monks who were priests were never to stand out in any way. The focus was that the ordained monk led his brothers in offering the sacrifice. The key word here is brothers. There is an entire theology that Benedict is teaching about the relationship between the ordained and the lay. The ordained is both servant and brother. Francis picked up on this concept and objected to distinctions between priests and laity. While he promoted and defended reverence for priests and the priesthood, regardless of the sins of the of the priest. There is another interesting theological truth that is being taught. In Franciscan tradition, the priest and the laity should not be segregated as mass. At the same time, the laity must venerate, obey and treat the priest with great reverence, even if he’s the greatest sinner. In modern

We have developed into a hard-headed, internet browsing people who know it all. I believe we need these “cues” that remind us that we should treat our priests AND the mass with reverence. Look what happens otherwise.

Traditionalist, we’ve turned this around. We want a distinction between priest and laity. We also want the freedom to bash a priest every time he sins. This is contrary to the theology that was introduced into the Church by such men as Benedict and Francis.

The reason that they protected the sinful priest was because bashing is never charitable. It comes from anger, resentment, a desire to control the other person, frustration and pride. Whereas fraternal correction is never violent, even when it is firm.

I don’t think the lack of respect is a traditionalist thing.

These are just some important contributions that these traditions have made to Catholic Tradition. Unless we understand them, we will be poorer for it. It is not enough to attend mass piously. We bring to the mass our lives. Therefore, we must work on building our spiritual life in line with one of the schools approved by the Church.

Agreed.

 

[TrentCath]

The problem, if it can be called a problem, is that the term Traditional Catholicism and Traditionalist has been reduced to represent a movement to preserve the Tridentine Form of the Mass, to debate certain points made by Vatican II and opposition to much of what has come after Vatican II. When you reduce terms to define movements, you lose much.

With all due respect Brother JR, although to some it may seem that Traditionalist Catholicism has been reduced to a movement merely regarding the Tridentine mass this a gross simplification of the matter. The term Traditionalist also means keeping the traditional rules of the church for example fasting for 3 hrs before receiving communion or from midnight if attending a morning mass, going to communion AND confession regularly, praying the Rosary regularly, praying other traditional devotions such as that To The Sacred Heart or Consecration to Our Lady through the principles of ‘True Devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary’. It also encompasses upholding the social reign of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and many many other things.

Furthermore it is also important to point out that there are many ‘Traditionalist’ religious abbeys and monasteries, such as Traditonalist benedictine abbeys/monasteries, Dominican abbeys and monasteries and so on. There are even occassions of abbots and superiors asking and receiving permission to return to the pre-Vatican II constitutions.

In this case, Traditional Catholicism has lost the entire concept of Catholic Traditions that gave form, shape, expression and rules to the spiritual life. These were not meant for religious. Many of them began with lay movements, such as the Franciscan School. Francis was a layman and so were 9 out of the 10 founding members of the Franciscans. Only one was a priest and not very influential in the order. However, Br. Giles is now a Blessed and became so by the way that he followed the Franciscan Tradition.

These traditions are essential to the Tradition. The Church has said that they are not accidental and that without them, the Church loses her identity. These traditions, whether they began as lay movements and became religious or began as religious and later included laity, in either case, they were given to the Church for the good of the body and they should not be dismissed or their importance ignored.

And traditionalist catholics would point out that the abandoning of abstaining from meat on Fridays, ember days and the failure to preach devotions such as the Rosary and that of the Sacred Heart have led to a loss of identity amongst Catholics.

In other words, it is very wrong to believe that because I don’t live in a Carmelite parish, the Carmelite tradition of prayer, liturgy, and theology has nothing to do with me. The fact is that it has a great deal to do with the entire Church, as do the Franciscan tradition, Dominican, Augustinian, Cluniac and others.

Simple example, many people are very upset when there don’t find communion rails in churches. When you tell them that Franciscans never installed communion rails in our chapels or churches. If they were there because the bishop wanted them or the church was built that way, fine. If they were not present or if we were given carte blanche to build the church or chapel according to our tradition, there would be no communion rails or there would be no Gregorian chant at mass. Other forms of music would be used.

That is all very well and good however it is important to point out several things here:

First there is a huge difference between the different traditions of the various religious orders and the UNIVERSAL traditions of the church, the latter hold far more weight than the former amongst the laity because they were designed from the beginning to affect all the faithful not just religious.

Second, it is not just communion rails we are talking about but also ‘rood screens’ something that was common to the whole church for hundreds if not thousands of years. Gregorian chant and so on has repeatedly been praised by the church and established as the best muscial expression of the churches worship. Of course religious orders and institutes may be exempt from these things because of their rule and/or constitution but it is altogether wrong to then claim these exemptions for the laity that attend.

People are quick to dismiss this as not relevant to them, either because they see Franciscans as a fringe group or because they are not involved with a Franciscan parish. However, they are missing the point. The point is to understand why Francis did not include these elements in the liturgy and why the Church allowed this tradition to continue. If we understand why he did not include these elements and why the Church exempted him and his brothers from it, then we will understand that things are not as grave as we think and that there is no error in not having these things, because there have always been significant portions of the Church that never had these elements and yet produced great saints, both religious and lay. Their focus was not on the elements, but on the faith formation. If we pay attention to why Francis did not have these elements, we find that he is grounded in the Dessert Fathers.

In no way did the Popes who praised and supported these orders or the Saint’s that founded them intend to undermine the importance of these traditions, they simply wished exemption in some cases from these traditions in their orders or communities. It is a whole different matter when we are dealing not with brothers or friars, that is those living a consecrated life who have been granted specfic graces and a particular formaton, and the laity who may not have these graces and will not have the formation.

 

[TrentCath]

The same thing would apply to the anger that people feel about “blurring the lines between the priest and the laity.” If we study Benedictine Tradition, which is an essential tradition to the spiritual life of the Church, Benedict insisted on blurring these lines. No one entered a monastery to be a priest. Monks who were priests were never to stand out in any way. The focus was that the ordained monk led his brothers in offering the sacrifice. The key word here is brothers. There is an entire theology that Benedict is teaching about the relationship between the ordained and the lay. The ordained is both servant and brother. Francis picked up on this concept and objected to distinctions between priests and laity. While he promoted and defended reverence for priests and the priesthood, regardless of the sins of the of the priest. There is another interesting theological truth that is being taught. In Franciscan tradition, the priest and the laity should not be segregated as mass. At the same time, the laity must venerate, obey and treat the priest with great reverence, even if he’s the greatest sinner. In modern Traditionalist, we’ve turned this around. We want a distinction between priest and laity. We also want the freedom to bash a priest every time he sins. This is contrary to the theology that was introduced into the Church by such men as Benedict and Francis.

When we are talking about the difference between Laity and Clergy, we are not talking about a tradition we are talking about a matter of faith, something to be believed De Fide. Regardless of the supposed traditions or otherwise of various great Saints of The Church, these great saints would always subject their traditions to the judgement of The Church and so must we.

As for Benedictines not segregating the people and priest, I myself went to Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland, the oldest still functioning monastery/abbey in Scotland, and they most certainly did segregate the laity and clergy.

It is also worth mentioning that times have changed since the founding of these great religious orders and as the church has often said ‘the apostolic fevor has waned’, therefore while it may have been appropriate at the time of the founding of these orders to allow these traditions,today it may not be.

The reason that they protected the sinful priest was because bashing is never charitable. It comes from anger, resentment, a desire to control the other person, frustration and pride. Whereas fraternal correction is never violent, even when it is firm.

I totally agree, it is however better to have people aware of liturgical abuses rather than people that are so ignorant of their faith and the mass they wouldnt recognise even the most blatant liturgical abuses.

These are just some important contributions that these traditions have made to Catholic Tradition. Unless we understand them, we will be poorer for it. It is not enough to attend mass piously. We bring to the mass our lives. Therefore, we must work on building our spiritual life in line with one of the schools approved by the Church.

I believe that the contributions have made are far larger than not having a communion rail and so on, besides which no one honestly believes that the reason these were removed was because lots of people wanted to listen to St Francis. It was because liberal bishops wanted to undermine the importance and uniqueness of the Priesthood, something that they have succeeded in doing.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

My understanding of the “Perfect Joy” is from the “Little Flowers” where the Saint relates that perfect joy is not to be found in great deeds but rather in self-control.

 

[JReducation]

We have to be careful not to confuse devotions with Schools of Christian Spirituality. Devotions are traditions with a lower case T and Schools of Christian Spirituality are traditions with an upper case T.

To make this clearer, let’s take something like praying the rosary. The Franciscan school says nothing for or against praying the rosary. However, it says a great deal about Mary, her role in redemption and her place in the life of the Church. If we learn what it says about her, it would make praying the rosary much more meaningful for many people. There were three Marian teachings that the Franciscan school defended and preached, which the Church accepts. 1) Mary is the Virgin made Church. 2) Mary is the Immaculate Conception. 3) Mary is the mother and model of all virtues.

The reason that I brought up the example of the communion rail was to show that something that people may believe is an evil or an error, is actually not so. The Franciscan School does not say that no one can have communion rails. In fact, the friars inherited many churches that had them and were commissioned to build other churches with them. They did so very gladly. They did not and do not include them in their chapels and churches, even if the lay faithful are to be present, because it’s not part of the Franciscan Tradition. Were it absolutely necessary for the mass or an error not to have them, it would be part of the tradition. It is inaccurate to say that the Franciscan movement received an exemption. Actually, the opposite is true. The rails came after the birth of the Mendicant Movement. The Mendicant Movement was free to adopt them or not. The fact that the Church allowed them to continue as they had done is the sign that the Church never saw the practice as erroneous or bad. The fails were instituted for a particular purpose, but it has nothing to do with morals or with the essence of the mass.

The same thing goes for the lines between the ordained and the non-ordained. It is true that many religious communities and houses have adopted those lines. However, it is not true that they were handed down through the ages. They were adopted for very specific reasons, usually pastoral. They were responding to a specific need, not to a doctrinal, moral or historical tradition. The distinction was always a sacramental distinction. However, it was always understood that the ordained was at the service of the people of God.

It was for this reason that men like Benedict and Francis did not encourage or include special accommodations for the ordained monks and friars. There was already the sacramental distinction. No other distinction was necessary. For that reason all of the friars and monks wore the same habit, all had the same rights and duties, and one would be unable to distinguish the priest from any other monk or friar. In some cases, even the title Father was not allowed and continues not to be allowed. Everyone is Brother. The theological concept here is the universal Fatherhood of God, the fact that Christ is the first-born among many brothers and sisters and that the ordained shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ through no merit of his own, but through the grace and movement of the Holy Spirit. It is actually a very Trinitarian theology.

In their structure, they teach to the world the relationship within the Trinity by living it in their lives and encouraging others to do the same within their own circumstances. These movements were not meant to remain inside an enclosure just for religious. They were meant to be seen by all in order to inspire all men and women of faith to follow along.

St. Francis is not encouraging anyone to throw anything away. He is going into something much deeper than these discussions. He is going into the journey of the soul into the mind of God. When he includes some elements and excludes others, it’s not because he is in error or because the Church has granted him an exemption. It is because this is the direction in which the Holy Spirit has moved him in order to deliver a very profound message to the world. He summarizes this message in one simple sentence, but it’s a loaded sentence, “to observe the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ in obedience.” Observing the Gospel requires a great deal of unwrapping. It requires an understanding of the Gospel as the Church understands it and obeying it as the Church obeys it. In reality, he’s going to take us back into the heart of the Church; but he is not going to focus on the externals, but on the evangelical. What makes his spirituality very different from what came before is that he took away a great deal of structure, but not because it was bad or because it did not serve a purpose. He took it away, because it was not necessary in order to follow the Gospel the way that he is teaching it to you. It’s almost like a craft. You need certain tools to do it this way, but if you do it this other way, you may have to add tools or you may be able to do without some. However, pay close attention to him, because he’s going to point out that one can never do without the governance of the Church, especially the local bishop. You can take or add rails or other elements, but the authority of the local bishop is not negotiable Franciscan theology, because it is a very apostolic theology.

 

[JReducation]

When we look at the Spiritual Masters and the great schools of Christian Spirituality, we must look not for the external practices, but for their theological teaching. Each of them teaches us something and they don’t contradict each other. Actually, they complement each other and they enrich the Church. Where we are weak today is in our knowledge of these schools. We need to reawaken our interest in them and apply them. There was a time when lay Catholics gravitated around the different schools: Benedictine, Carmelite, Franciscan, Dominican, Ignatian, Salesian, etc. As the number of parishes run by secular priests increased and dioceses grew, less Catholics had the opportunity to live close to these spiritualities.

I believe that by not studying them as we did, we have lost a great deal and we have created a false idea that these teachings, principles, and disciplines are only for consecrated religious. This is not the case. They remain with us, because we still need them. But we don’t just need what a friar or monk can do. That’s important; but more important is what the friar and monk lives and believes. In the end, we can’t all do what Francis did. We can certainly believe and live according to the great truths that he embraced and continue to be present through his sons and daughters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrentCath]

The reason that I brought up the example of the communion rail was to show that something that people may believe is an evil or an error, is actually not so. The Franciscan School does not say that no one can have communion rails. In fact, the friars inherited many churches that had them and were commissioned to build other churches with them. They did so very gladly. They did not and do not include them in their chapels and churches, even if the lay faithful are to be present, because it’s not part of the Franciscan Tradition. Were it absolutely necessary for the mass or an error not to have them, it would be part of the tradition. It is inaccurate to say that the Franciscan movement received an exemption. Actually, the opposite is true. The rails came after the birth of the Mendicant Movement. The Mendicant Movement was free to adopt them or not. The fact that the Church allowed them to continue as they had done is the sign that the Church never saw the practice as erroneous or bad. The fails were instituted for a particular purpose, but it has nothing to do with morals or with the essence of the mass.

Actually Brother JR Altar rails, even if low, have been with us since the 6th century which whilst not pre-dating St Benedict does pre-date St Francis by several hundred years and ‘Rood Screens’ or the Roman Equivalent have been with us since the 7th or 8th centuries. Ciborium’s had likewise been present since the 6th or 7th centuries and likewise emphasised the separation of Clergy and Laity, Iconostasis played a similar role in the east and continue to do so today. In short the tradition of separating the laity from the clergy is not only present very early in the churches history but is also universal throughout The whole Church. Indeed some ‘Rood Screens’ emphasised the separation so much that the Council of Trent dealt with the matter saying that the celebrations of mass should be made more accessible to the laity.

Therefore whilst it may not be the Franciscan tradition, it was and still is the tradition of the church, this is what I meant by exemption, it was and still is an aberration from the normal way of doing things. That is not to say that those orders which have this tradition are doing anything illegitimate but it is to limit this tradition to those for whom it was intended and that is not the universal church.

The same thing goes for the lines between the ordained and the non-ordained. It is true that many religious communities and houses have adopted those lines. However, it is not true that they were handed down through the ages. They were adopted for very specific reasons, usually pastoral. They were responding to a specific need, not to a doctrinal, moral or historical tradition. The distinction was always a sacramental distinction. However, it was always understood that the ordained was at the service of the people of God.

As I have said above the separating of clergy and the laity is both an ancient and universal tradition of The Church. It has deep rooted theological and doctrinal justifications, namely that the sanctuary is by virtue of the most holy sacrifice performed there sanctified and set apart for God, as well as emphasising the fact that priests are consecrated to serve God whilst the Laity are not.

 

[TrentCath]

I believe that by not studying them as we did, we have lost a great deal and we have created a false idea that these teachings, principles, and disciplines are only for consecrated religious. This is not the case. They remain with us, because we still need them. But we don’t just need what a friar or monk can do. That’s important; but more important is what the friar and monk lives and believes. In the end, we can’t all do what Francis did. We can certainly believe and live according to the great truths that he embraced and continue to be present through his sons and daughters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is indeed true, one need only look at that great treasure of the church ‘The Spiritual Exercises’ by St Ignatius Loyola to realise how much saints and the various traditions of the many religious orders and congregations have to offer us. However one must also be careful not to apply some of these traditions which were never intended for the laity to the laity, because at times it may well be harmful for them or may simply not benefit them.

Going back to the spiritual exercises, they are without a doubt a treasure of the church but if used without proper spiritual guidance and discernment they can cause serious harm as people may not discern the workings of God from that of Satan or his agents and so endanger their souls.

 

[TrueLight]

Br. JR,

Is it okay to mix and match different schools of spirituality or is that not recommended?

For example, after reading the Perfect Joy of St Francis, I want more Francisican spirituality. But this early in my journey, I am curious about other schools, so if I’m reading all this material, no doubt I will be mixing and matching.

 

[JReducation]

Actually Brother JR Altar rails, even if low, have been with us since the 6th century which whilst not pre-dating St Benedict does pre-date St Francis by several hundred years and ‘Rood Screens’ or the Roman Equivalent have been with us since the 7th or 8th centuries. Ciborium’s had likewise been present since the 6th or 7th centuries and likewise emphasised the separation of Clergy and Laity, Iconostasis played a similar role in the east and continue to do so today. In short the tradition of separating the laity from the clergy is not only present very early in the churches history but is also universal throughout The whole Church. Indeed some ‘Rood Screens’ emphasised the separation so much that the Council of Trent dealt with the matter saying that the celebrations of mass should be made more accessible to the laity.

Therefore whilst it may not be the Franciscan tradition, it was and still is the tradition of the church, this is what I meant by exemption, it was and still is an aberration from the normal way of doing things. That is not to say that those orders which have this tradition are doing anything illegitimate but it is to limit this tradition to those for whom it was intended and that is not the universal church.

As I have said above the separating of clergy and the laity is both an ancient and universal tradition of The Church. It has deep rooted theological and doctrinal justifications, namely that the sanctuary is by virtue of the most holy sacrifice performed there sanctified and set apart for God, as well as emphasising the fact that priests are consecrated to serve God whilst the Laity are not.

This is indeed true, one need only look at that great treasure of the church ‘The Spiritual Exercises’ by St Ignatius Loyola to realise how much saints and the various traditions of the many religious orders and congregations have to offer us. However one must also be careful not to apply some of these traditions which were never intended for the laity to the laity, because at times it may well be harmful for them or may simply not benefit them.

Going back to the spiritual exercises, they are without a doubt a treasure of the church but if used without proper spiritual guidance and discernment they can cause serious harm as people may not discern the workings of God from that of Satan or his agents and so endanger their souls.

I don’t think I’m getting my point across clearly. Instead, we’re getting stuck on what Franciscans consider a non-issue, because it’s not part of the Medicant School of Spiritual Theology, which is what this thread is about, specifically the Franciscan arm of the Mendicant School. Let’s get back to what’s really important, Francis’ theology, which is conveyed though his life, his writings and his family.

While I appreciate these other concerns, I’m more interested in theology. I don’t really get too excited about these other questions, because they’re not points of theology, but more so of customs, disciplines and traditions. While these are important, without theology, they do not make for very exciting conversation. The conversation usually ends up in the same merry-go-round, should we or should we not have this or that. Whereas the wealth of Franciscan theology, which is rooted in Benedictine theology and takes on a life of its own beginning with Francis, developed by Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Lawrence of Brindisi, Francis of Osuna, Peter of Alcantara, Fidelis Sigmaringen, Anthony of Padua, Maximilian Kolbe and now Pope Benedict XVI is very rich and makes for very exciting and interesting dialogue.

I’d be delighted to engage more in these writings and their influence in the development of Spiritual Theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

My understanding of the “Perfect Joy” is from the “Little Flowers” where the Saint relates that perfect joy is not to be found in great deeds but rather in self-control.

Actually, one has to be very careful with the Little Flowers. They were not intended to be read as historical writings. The writers of the Fiioretti, as they were originally called, were writing Spiritual Theology, not facts. Remember, writing biographical facts about St. Francis of Assisi was banned by the General Chapter of the Order until 2 February 1257. At that time, the General Chapter elected Bonaventure as Minister General, but mandated him under holy obedience, to write the official biography of St. Francis. The Chapter ordered all previous biographies to be burned.

There are only two biographies that predate that chapter, both written by Thomas of Celano. The Fioretti or Little Flowers are a collection of popular legends that seem to have been written between the time of Francis death in the 13th century and the early 14th century. We believe that it took about 100 years to collect all of them.

What the different writers of the stories seem to try to do is use legend to teach theology. Teaching through story-telling is an ancient art. In fact, it’s one that Francis himself employed. It’s a very difficult art too.

The message of the story in the Fioretti is detachment from self. In the story, Francis allegedly asks what would happen if they were to arrive at the friary and no one recognized them and threw them out, rejected them and did not allow them to enter. He concludes with , “This would be perfect joy.”

However, from reading other things that he said in real life, mostly about himself, we understand that Francis was a man who did not take himself too seriously. This has to be understood correctly. He was very serious about what he believed, what he taught and what he expected.

However, if you have read this book or the actual writings of Francis, he goes into great detail about obedience. When he is asked how one should obey (pg 210) he answers, “Like a coprse.” Timmermans is getting this from Francis writings on obedience. The obedient man is like a corpse. A corpse has no wishes of its own, no feelings, no desires, feels no pain, no anger, no frustration and no attachments. Perfect joy is achieved when one can reach this state of being, where it makes no difference to you what the world does or does not do, because you are open to what God gives and you generously give what God takes, just as a corpse accepts to be placed where ever.

The story in the Little Flowers is about Francis’ theology of detachment. One must be like Christ who despite the pain and death of the cross, was delighted to suffer for the sake of the world and in obedience to the Father. It does not mean that one goes to the gallows laughing one’s head off. Christ certainly did not climb the cross with a smile on his face. But he did climb the cross with love and generosity in his heart. This is perfect joy, to accept the cross and be willing to sacrifice everything else, even one’s opinions, supositions, feelings, desires, belongings and plans, to achieve the same level of detachment as Christ. In order to accept that level of detachment, one cannot take oneself too seriously.

That means that my opinions are not important, nor are my plans, nor my posessions, nor anything that I’m thinking. When the rubber meets the road, what is truly important is to lose oneself in the arms of obedience. But one cannot be obedient, while one believes that one is right. Obedience is not about being right. It is about being poor.

Br. JR,

Is it okay to mix and match different schools of spirituality or is that not recommended?

For example, after reading the Perfect Joy of St Francis, I want more Francisican spirituality. But this early in my journey, I am curious about other schools, so if I’m reading all this material, no doubt I will be mixing and matching.

It certainly is. They compliment each other. Some are like flowers that grow in the same garden, but of a different color, thus complimenting each other, such as the Mendicant School. You have Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Trinitarians and Servites. These are the major mendicant spiritualities. Together, they make up the Mendicant School. They are like different flowers in one garden. Then you have adjacent gardens. There is the Cluniac Movement, of which we have not spoken, which is very rich. It emcompasses the different monastic spiritualities, all grounded in Benedict. The Augustinian school stands by itself as does the Ignatian (Jesuit) school. Then you have the Clerks, which are the apostolic movements, those include such great masters as Francis de Sales, Eugene de Maserat (sp?), Vincent de Paul, Louis de Montfort, and others. Within these schools there are also many women

In the Carmelite School you have the three Teresas: Teresa of Avila, Therese, Edith Stein. In the Dominican School there is Catherine of Siena. In the Franciscan School there are Clare, Colette, Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Mother Teresa is fascinating, because she pulls from Francis and from Benedict. She has the whole theme of obedience without second thoughts, which is Benedictine and Franciscan. She has the total identification with Christ who thirsts, which is Franciscan. She also has the strong theology of hospitality, which is Benedictine again. She integrates two very old schools and gives them her personal touch. Although she never though of herself as a theologian, she certainly is a spiritual master in her own right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LordLove7_11_11]

Anyone ever read “Francis: The Journey and the Dream” by Franciscan Fr. Murray Bodo? Awesome hagiography that brought me to tears and changed my life.

 

[TrueLight]

Anyone ever read “Francis: The Journey and the Dream” by Franciscan Fr. Murray Bodo? Awesome hagiography that brought me to tears and changed my life.

I haven’t actually. I’ll add it to my list of books to read. Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[hazcompat]

I’m still waiting for my copy of The Perfect Joy of Saint Francis. Awhile back I tried to find English writings of Lawrence of Brindisi, but was unsuccessful. any advice?

peace

 

[JReducation]

Anyone ever read “Francis: The Journey and the Dream” by Franciscan Fr. Murray Bodo? Awesome hagiography that brought me to tears and changed my life.

That’s always interesting. Lay people love this book, while friars, sisters and nuns enjoy it, but are not passionate about it. I read it twice thinking that the second time I would get more out of it and I came away with the same feeling. It was OK. Murray writes well. He’s an excellent poet. His images are tops. I wonder if the difference is that the friars, sisters and nuns know the biographical data and are looking for more of that or are looking for Franciscan Theology. Murray does not write biography or theology. He’s trying to inspire. Maybe, just maybe, once you have bought into Franciscan Spirituality, you read The Journey and the Dream and you’re left waiting for more. I’m just speculating here.

Timmermans takes a lot of liberty with sequences of evens and filling blanks to make the story flow, but he does something different. He lets Francis do the talking. It’s Francis telling you his story. Those who know the details and the data are still inspired, because it’s the voice of Francis. It is obvious that Pope Piux IX and Timmermans were very familiar with Francis’ way of saying things. They had obviously read his writings and were trying very hard to use the same style of speaking and same voice in telling Francis’ story.

Whereas Murray is sharing his own reflection and meditations on St. Francis. He does so in beautiful language and imagery and he captures the spirit of St. Francis well, but it’s not Francis’ voice and it’s not theology. It’s inspirational writing. It will move those who have never read Francis’ own writings, because the reader would be unable to tell the difference in the tone and the style.

I’m still waiting for my copy of The Perfect Joy of Saint Francis. Awhile back I tried to find English writings of Lawrence of Brindisi, but was unsuccessful. any advice?

peace

I have never read them in English. They exist in Italian and Spanish. There are a few works translated into English. You can find them on amazon.com by typing in Lawrence of Brindisi. He is the patron of the Charismatic Movement. He wrote and taught extensively on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the work of the Holy Spirit. He is also known for his works on peace. He was very involved in diplomatic affairs during his time. He often served as an ambassador for the Holy See and several other leaders. I have the honor of working with one of his great great great+ nephews who is an absolutely brilliant theologian. It must be in their genes.

 

[LordLove7_11_11]

It was OK. Murray writes well. He’s an excellent poet. His images are tops…

Timmermans…lets Francis do the talking. It’s Francis telling you his story.

I am a poet myself and loved Murray’s writing style, which I think is a big reason I liked the book so much. That and I actually took a course on Francis taught by Fr. Murray. He went over his writing process and said that he felt Francis was basically speaking through him. He said there were many things in the book that he never planned on, but once he started he felt like Francis took it from there and told his story. I have to admit, I do feel like I know Francis after reading the book; he is one of my favorite saints to be sure. I will definitely have to take on Timmermans’ work though; I’m sure it’s wonderful.

 

[JReducation]

I am a poet myself and loved Murray’s writing style, which I think is a big reason I liked the book so much. That and I actually took a course on Francis taught by Fr. Murray. He went over his writing process and said that he felt Francis was basically speaking through him. He said there were many things in the book that he never planned on, but once he started he felt like Francis took it from there and told his story. I have to admit, I do feel like I know Francis after reading the book; he is one of my favorite saints to be sure. I will definitely have to take on Timmermans’ work though; I’m sure it’s wonderful.

That makes perfect sense to me. Someone who has a poet’s heart and mind would find Murray’s work inspiring. Someone like me, who is an analyst, gets frustrated with that type of writing. There is nothing wrong with Fr. Murray’s work. It’s just not for everyone. It’s certainly not for the person who is trying to do theology or history. That’s not how he writes. I have read other works by him and they are very poetic as well. As I said, his images are beautiful. To the theologian, they get in the way. The theologian is looking for the rational and the historian is looking for the causes and effects behind the events. Fr. Murray is not working with that. As far as I can tell, he’s leading you through a meditation, because he’s meditating on Francis.

Timmermans works out of the early sources and from the writings of Pope Pius IX. What they tried to do was to have Francis tell his story in a manner that flows like a novel. They deliberately reorganize many of the events to create ascending action, climax and descending action. It’s perfectly historical, but it’s not chronological. If you have never studied a Franciscan timeline, you would not know this, because they tie the events together thematically. It looks plausible that they happened in the order that Timmermans presents them. The truth is that life is not that organized. Life happens while we’re busy about other things.

When you read Francis of Assisi you can approach him from several angles and they all work:

1. Inspiration
2. The Medicant Movement in Church History
3. Franciscan Trinitarian Theology
4. Ascetical and Mystical Theology
5. Hermaneutics and biblical exegesis
6. History of the lay penitential movement in the Church
7. Religious psychology

He’s such a well rounded person and such a rich person that you can come at him from many perspectives. This is what makes him the most popular saint. More has been written about Francis of Assisi than any other saint in the Church. Francis is such a complex person and his theology has so many layers that there are actually doctoral degrees on Franciscan Studies.

Francis didn’t just die. He left a legacy that has been transmitted by his sons and daughters for 800 years, unlike any other founder. Even Benedict was not as influential, as much as he is loved by the Benedictine and Franciscan families.

There is an interesting quality about Francis and an interesting relationship between him and his followers. The four orders that he founded all love the man. When you attend any formation program in any religious community you’re taught to follow the spirit and rule of the community. When you attend a formatioin program in a Franciscan community you’re taught to be like Francis. The rule is used to explain the man. For most Franciscans, both secular and religious, the rule is not as important as the man who wrote it. There is more to him than there is to his three rules. There is not much new in any of his rules. It had all been said by Benedict, Augustine, and Albert. It’s the way that Francis lived the rule that attracts men and women. The rule is actually boring and has many gaps in it. That’s why there are so many branches to the one family.

Each group of religious had to answer questions that Francis did not address in the rule. They did not always agree on the answers to these questions. This led to the creation of new communities with the same rules, but different fillers in the areas where there are gaps. I’ll give you a simple example.

Francis says very little about priests in any of his rules. We know that he was not a priest and that of the 11 foundiing brothers only one was a priest. We know that there were some secular priests who were part of the secular order along with married people. But he never says anything about marriage and family either.

Over the past 800 years question came up about priests in the order. Some friars had one answer and others had another answer. They were legitimate answers, very moral, very grounded in doctrine, but no one knew for sure, which one would Francis adopt, if he were alive. It was finally decided that, “You guys form one community and you guys form another. You guys have your General Minister and you guys over there have your General Minister.” That’s how we come up with the term “Obediences.” They are the same order, obedient to the same rule, but also obedient to different constitutions and different General Ministers. Those Constitutions don’t trump the rule. They only address what is not in the rule.

Because Francis is such a complex figure, when questions come up, it’s not always easy to answer them as he would. The result is a new group of Franciscans is carved out of an older group. Since one comes out of the other, the succession is never lost. They are all Franciscan. It’s awesome how God did this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choliks]

I’m a child of Ignatian spirituality, but St. Francis’ theology and spirituality cuts deep… to the core. I particularly like the point on poverty and entitlement; it put things into perspective.

My wife and I can barely save because of bills to pay, and we are expecting our first child. So we worry to no end what will happen when the baby comes. Naturally, we’d pray to the Lord for help, yet we haven’t realized how we are already blessed until now.

Our baby is one of God’s biggest graces to us. We were supposed to have only a 20% or so chance of getting pregnant because of endometriosis. We prayed to the Lord to bless us with a child, and we got pregnant on the first try. I can only try to raise my child to love God with all of herself as my means of returning to Him what we have been given.

We also haven’t realized that though we can’t save as much as we want, be we have lived through each day with a roof over our heads, full stomachs, comfortable beds, supportive friends and families, and smiles. Compared to most standards in our country, it’s already luxury. Who said that we haven’t been given what we needed?Indeed we are dependent on God’s love, mercy, and grace. Who am I to ask for more?

 

[JReducation]

I’m a child of Ignatian spirituality, but St. Francis’ theology and spirituality cuts deep… to the core. I particularly like the point on poverty and entitlement; it put things into perspective.

My wife and I can barely save because of bills to pay, and we are expecting our first child. So we worry to no end what will happen when the baby comes. Naturally, we’d pray to the Lord for help, yet we haven’t realized how we are already blessed until now.

Our baby is one of God’s biggest graces to us. We were supposed to have only a 20% or so chance of getting pregnant because of endometriosis. We prayed to the Lord to bless us with a child, and we got pregnant on the first try. I can only try to raise my child to love God with all of herself as my means of returning to Him what we have been given.

We also haven’t realized that though we can’t save as much as we want, be we have lived through each day with a roof over our heads, full stomachs, comfortable beds, supportive friends and families, and smiles. Compared to most standards in our country, it’s already luxury. Who said that we haven’t been given what we needed?Indeed we are dependent on God’s love, mercy, and grace. Who am I to ask for more?

If you read any story on St. Francis, you will read about a tiem when the brothers moved into a monastery. The monastery was austere by today’s standards, but not by Francis’ standards. It had a large chapel with all the trimming, a library, refectory, community room and a separate room for each brother. When Francis saw it, he insisted that the brothers move out. He said, “When you don’t stay poor and simple, then evil moves in.”

In the book we’re reading they present the story a little more dramatically than how it happened. However, this is actually a true story and it caused a brother to be excommunicated for disagreeing with Francis on the matter of poverty. There were two points that Christ had revealed to Francis and he wans unwavering. The first was the same that he had revealed to Benedict.

In order to obey the Gospel, one must listen to the Church. Whether the hierarchy are sinners, saints or fools, that’s whom God has chosen to succeed the Apostles and they were nothing to write home about either. They grew along the journey. Obedience has to be like Christ’s obedience. One may never obey a command to sin, but everything else, one must accept without question and without murmurring. Christ submitted to Pilate’s authority, not because Pilate was right, but because Pilate had been placed in his path by the Father. In other words, Christ accepted the poverty of the cross, because it was the will of the Father. If we’re going to live according to the Gospel, we must live by the example of Christ and his mother. Both were obedient to the Will of God.

To understand the Will of God one must strip of the self. Otherwise, one runs the risk of listening to oneself too much and not hearing God. This is where Poverty becomes a necessary virtue. We have to stop trying to own, not only material things, but also control everything about our lives, especially what is going to happen tomorrow.

If we continue to try to control, then we’re not poor. The poor man has nothing to control. It al belongs to his master. Your pregnancy is a beautiful example of how deteachment is life giving. The moment you stop trying to control and you stop trying to own the your future and the moment that you put your material needs in God’s hands and simply do the best you can at the present moment, God steps in and gives life.

Francis understood this from studyng the Scripture. It was not until Abram and Sarai stopped trying to force things along that Sarai became Sarah and gave birth to Jacob. Whne Zachariah tried to control, the was struck mute and did not speak again until he fulfilled the Will of God and wrote, “His name is John.” Whereas, Mary simply said, “Be it done according to your word.” She is poor, she owns nothing, not even her body. Everything is in God’s hands and at that point, Francis tells us in one of his prayers that she become The Virgin Made Church.

God does not want us to sit and do nothing. He wants us to work for what is necessary, not what we want. This is why Francis rejected the monastery. The brothers did not need a monastery nor do they need one today. The same can be said for the layman. Many have more than they need, but want more. When we give in to that desire, we allow evil to creep into our lives. The first thing that creeps in entitlement and its sister, self-determination. We feel entitled to have and to determine our future without God in the picture.

Poverty, as Francis discovered it, when it is embraced voluntarilly, will free us from entitlement and from the anxiety that comes with trying to control and predict every moment of our future.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF