The Perfect Joy of St. Francis

[LongJohnSilver]

I read The Perfect Joy a year ago and was blown away by it. It changed my outlook on the world and people around me. I try to incorporate lessons from St. Francis’ life into my own.

I do have a question for the other readers and Br. JR. What is the role of brother Elias in the story? Is he used by Timmermans as a sort of antitype of St. Francis? Did he really exist and if so, was he really like Timmermans depicts him?

 

[JReducation]

I read The Perfect Joy a year ago and was blown away by it. It changed my outlook on the world and people around me. I try to incorporate lessons from St. Francis’ life into my own.

I do have a question for the other readers and Br. JR. What is the role of brother Elias in the story? Is he used by Timmermans as a sort of antitype of St. Francis? Did he really exist and if so, was he really like Timmermans depicts him?

Brother Elias is a very complicated character in the early history of the Franciscan family. His first problem was that he was a priest. One must remember that the Franciscan men were not founded as an order priests. Priests were welcome to join and some of the brothers were allowed to receive Holy Orders, but the expectation still remains to this day that a priest in the Franciscan family remains a religious brother first. There is not that awe over priests that you would find in the rest of the Church, especially among the laity. There is no sense of urgency to have priests, because the Gospel Life can be lived without them as long as there is Catholic priest somewhere to celebrate mass and hear confessions. Priests have always been loved and venerated because only through them do we see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Having said all of this, it means that there is no room for clericalism in the Franciscan family. Herein is the problem with Elias and many of the friar-priests who followed him. These priests were well educated. Some came from prestige. Francis, on the other hand, was a layman and had a layman’s education in the faith. His father was wealthy, but not a nobleman. However, he was the founder and father of three orders: friars, nuns and seculars. On the other hand, Elias was brilliant and an excellent administrator. Francis was holy, very intelligent, but a disaster as an administrator. Elias was elected vicar. When Francis was not present, the vicar is the superior.

Francis would often leave for months at time. When he went to the Holy Land, he was gone for more than a year. No one knew if he was dead or alive. Elias was the acting superior general. Being brilliant and an excellent administrator, he begins to introduce a series of “reforms” into the order: ordaining more men to the priesthood, limiting education only to those who were going to be priests, accepting buildings as the property of the order, introduced Gregorian Chant and formal chanting of the Liturgy of the Hours, such as was done by monks. He has conflicts with Clare. He was the acting superior general, true enough, but Clare and Francis had struck a deal. No male would ever rule over any Franciscan female. This was not the case in other orders except the Brigitines. To this day, communities that have men and women are governed by men, the only exception are the Franciscans and Brigitines. Elias introduced the use of a common habit. He accepted donations that went beyond food: books, money, furniture, and other things necessary for daily life.

The poop hits the fan when Elias decides to rewrite the Rule. Our first rule was a string of verses from the bible. Elias understood that when the first generation of brothers was gone, the order would fall apart unless there were statutes that explained those verses and unless there was a strong central government.

When Francis returns, he finds these changes. Therein begin the sufferings of St. Francis with the brethren. The brothers were divided. A group calling themselves the Observants, wanted to leave things as Francis has founded them: no clericalism, no property, education and formation for everyone, no gifts other than what was necessary for work, no interference with the nuns, no more LOTH in choir with chanting and incense, etc. No more solemn masses.

However, during Francis’ absence, many men had joined the order under the guidance of Elias. Their vision of the Franciscan life was formed by Elias. They were content with what Elias had done. Those men who were happy with Elias way called themselves the Conventual friars, because they lived in large houses called convents. They still do to this day. In fact, they run the shrines in Assisi, because no other Franciscan takes on such gigantic houses and places of worship, not even for the honor of Francis.

Elias was not a bad man. He was an administrator and a priest. Francis was a layman and a saint. When Francis died, Elias became the superior general. This was also when he got himself into serious trouble with the Church.

The pope had persuaded Francis to rewrite the rule and clarify some points. Francis did so. He also wrote a serious of admonitions, which are to the rule what a constitution is to the Bill of Rights. You can add to the constitution. You cannot add or delete from the Bill of Rights.

 

[JReducation]

Francis has unequivocally stated that the final draft of the rule has been revealed to him by Christ. It had not come from his head, but dictated by Christ himself. Pope Honorius had written a bull that sealed the rule forever. Elias, believing that the revelation was a private revelation and not binding on anyone decided to tackle the rule again. His goal was to write more articles into it to address the new situations of the growing order.

Well, pope went ballistic. Fist, Elias was a priest and was using his clerical authority incorrectly. Priests in the Franciscans have one role and one role only, to serve their brothers by celebrating the sacraments for them. They have no authority over their brothers, nor do they have any more authority over the laity than a non ordained brother. They are equal in every way. Elias could not claim that he knew what he was doing because he was a priest. Francis had not set the order up this way.

Elias pointed out a few things that should be in there: a formal LOTH with chant and all, a formal celebration of the mass with Gregorian chant and a separation between the ordained and non ordained brothers. Gather the brothers from living in borrowed huts and homes into larger houses provided by the local bishop. Wear a common habit to make themselves recognizable as Franciscans. The big “No No” a brother who was not a priest could not hold office, nor could he preach in public. He was limited to maintaining the house for the brother priests who were out preaching and to working to put food on the table. This created a two class system.

Enough was enough. Elias was called to the Holy See to explain himself. He was asked if he believed that the rule was a revelation from God that bound. Elias said that he believed that it was a private revelation, but that private revelations do not bind the Church or others. The pope declared him a heretic on the grounds that he personally had approved that revelation to be true. Elias was laicized and excommunicated for disobeying the Seraphic Father Francis who had left it written that the rule was etched in stone because it was revealed by Christ.

After several years, Elias recanted. The excommunication was lifted. He was never given faculties to exercise the priesthood, nor was he allowed to rejoin the Franciscans. He lived and died as a penitent. The Church imposed a life long penance on him for daring to question Francis of Assisi. The penalty was that he would never exercise the priestly ministry or be allowed to rejoin the religious life, along with fasts and abstinence, etc.

Elias lived a truly penitential life and died a very holy man. His cause for beatification was turned down, because he challenged Francis’ authority. To this day, the Church does not accept this. The Church considers Francis to be a) The Mirror of Perfection, b) the Perfect Christian, c) the Seraphic Father burning with love, d) the Living First Beatitude, and c) The Most Catholic Man. Different popes have made different observations of him and have always placed him very high on the hierarchy of saints in heaven.

One this is true. Elias was right about the need for better administration. The order grew so big that over the centuries we have had to subdivide into smaller branches, called obediences. Each obedience follows the same rule, but has its own governing body and it’s own constitutions. The constitutions address whatever Francis does not address in his writings. They cannot trump Francis’ writings or the verbal commands that he gave. Francis is still the father whom everyone obeys. He plays such a significant part in the life of the order, that the Church allowed the Franciscans to include his name in the Confetior and the Canon of the Mass. The Church also declared three solemnities in his honor. The only saint that has more solemnities than Francis is the Blessed Mother. She’s also the only saint who has more titles.

One has to be careful when reading any book, because it’s going to portray the characters as they were at the point that the book is addressing. However, it’s not going to tell you what happened later, because it’s not relevant. In this case, the fact that Elias lived and died a holy life of penance is not relevant to the story of St. Francis. These things came later. What is relevant to the story of St. Francis are the conflicts between Elias and Francis.

I know this is long, but to be fair to Brother Elias, one must have the complete picture with the conclusion. He recanted, admitted that disobeying Francis was breaking with the papacy, because the papacy had sealed Francis’ words with a bull. Therefore he admitted that his actions were heretical and that he deserved the excommunication. He accepted his punishment and never complained. He lived a holy life as a penitent until his death.

He’s a fascinating personality and there are many more layers to this man that cannot be done justice on a simple post.

Will he ever be canonized for his great life of penance?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[PrayRosary]

Thank you for your great posts Brother JR

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your great posts Brother JR

You’re welcome. I always tease people with the same statement.

“If you don’t want to find yourself at the end of the pope’s red slipper, don’t mess with the Jesuits, Dominicans or Franciscans.”

There have been more ballistic popes defending and protecting these orders than defending and protecting the faith. All popes defend and protect the faith. I can’t think of a single one who has not done so. But most of them do so with great calm and very systematically. They’ll make statements, issue decrees, write encyclicals, call synods and councils, in other words, they use as much protocol as they can.

If one reads the history of religious life in the Catholic Church, whenever there have been problems involving the Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans, protocols and diplomacy are put on hold and popes go off. There are excommunications, threats of excommunications, papal interdicts, penalties, removal from office and other serious consequences.

The best case was when the Jesuits and Dominicans disagreed on the definition of grace, which they still do to this day. They became so angry at each other that they began to call each other heretics. The pope went off. The papacy does not tolerate these orders being attacked But this time, they were attacking each other. When they asked the pope to settle the dispute, he said that both orders were right and refused to define grace. Instead, he said that he would excommunicate the next man who called either a Jesuit or a Dominican a heretic. Keep in mind that the next man to whom he’s speaking are the Jesuits and Dominicans.

The papacy has protected these three orders even from themselves. There have been visions and private messages that popes and others have received in which Christ has revealed to them that these three orders will save the Church from collapse, despite their human faults and that they shall be rewarded by being around until the Second Coming. They will never die out.

Taking this back to St. Francis, in order to understand some of the more interesting personalities in Franciscan history, it’s important to understand

a. the relationship between Francis and the Church

b. the relationship between these individuals and Francis

c. how this relationship with Francis affected their relationship with the Church.

History often focuses on their relationship with Francis. But you don’t understand the relationship between Francis and the Church, then it’s hard to understand how the Church views these individuals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Great answer, BrJ, thanks a lot!

 

[JReducation]

It’s very easy and very dangerous to look at a founder and compare his sons or daughters to him. That’s unreasonable. The founder has his personality, which is like finger prints.

One must look at the founder’s vision and charism. What is vision? Vision is how he saw his community. In Francis’ case, he saw his community as a brotherhood of equals that included men and women, ordained and non-ordained, all bound to the Gospel by unquestioning obedience. In order to best obey, they surrendered, not only their wills, but also their possessions, especially their family name. He did not foresee his brotherhood doing anything in particular for the laity. It was a system that faces inward not outward. You are there for the benefit of your brothers and sisters in community. Things like, teaching, nursing, parish work and other were not important. Each man had to work at whatever he was good at. That as far as Francis’ vision went.

Then you have to look at his charism. To do so, one must understand the meaning of the term charism. Charism is a gift. It’s positive gift. I can give a beautiful give and when you open it, it blows up in your face. This is not a charism. Charism is a gift from the Holy Spirit. This gift influences your thinking and your actions. When we look at a founder, we don’t look at what he did or did not do. That’s just scratching the surface. I’m always annoyed by people who say to me, “St Francis would not have done this the way that you’re doing it.” My immediate thought it, “Do you truly know this man’s vision and understand his gift and how he used it?” Much of what he did was influenced by his personality, not his vision or charism.

So what was Francis’ charism? His charism was detachment. In his day, the term detachment did not yet exist. So, he used the word “poverty”. But the poverty that Francis and his brothers embraced was not the imposed on them by sin, avarice, injustice, dishonesty, war and other evils. They shared the same poverty as the victims of sin, but they did so voluntarily, just as Christ shared the same death as those born with Original Sin, but he does on voluntarily.

Francis’ poverty goes beyond the material. Not only is the Catholic expected to detach from the material, he is expected to detach from his opinions, desires, wishes, plans and even point of view. Why so? Because when Francis looks at the poor he realizes that their opinions don’t count. No one takes into account their desires and wishes. Society ignores their plans and their point of view. In the case of the poor, this dehumanizing conditions are imposed on them. In the case of Francis and his brothers, these conditions are freely chosen, just as Christ freely chooses to die as common criminal naked on a cross. The only thing that you own is your sinfulness. Obedience does not give you the right to abdicate moral responsibility.

When you look at someone like Francis, don’t just look at his life and then at his sons. That will tell you very little. Look at his vision for his sons and at the charism that the Holy Spirit gave him. It is this vision and charism that he hands down to his sons as their way of life. How they execute it is going to vary from generation to generation and from culture to culture. But they cannot deviate from the vision and charism or they cease to be Franciscan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[deedward]

{QUOTE} I tend to feel that there are social agencies set in place and pantries and no on needs to beg. In fact, pandering is illegal on the trains. I also tend to feel that most of the beggars are alcoholics and drug addicts. And maybe they are. But who am I to make that judgement? Alcoholics and drug addicts need to eat to. Maybe some of them wake up and ask God what they are going to eat today. And maybe God can use me for his purposes.

When this first became an issue for me, I don’t think I had money on me … I only carry money when donating to the Church as I can … I don’t have a lot of extra money so I didn’t want to become a billboard of a walking coin dispenser. I didn’t want to fund alcohol/drug addict activity either. . Where I live the beggars stand at the traffic intersections, silently walking between cars during red lights so I was also concerned about safety issues. Not just the pedestrian physical safety issues when the lights change, but from those with little patience or empathy behaviing badly due to anger shoul they be held up an extra 30 seconds or miss getting through the green traffic light.

Conflicted, I spoke to my priest who suggested I carry granola bars. I thought that was a wonderful idea, yet I felt awkward the first time I handed the pedestrian a bar saying " I don’t have money for you, but I have this.". I was thinking they would be ungrateful or even offended … I am a relatively new Cathoic and wasn’t aware at that time what it meant to “pick up your cross daily and follow Me” meant fully. The sweetness of gratitude I have received each time has been so heart warming and inspiring. +AMDG+

 

[deedward]

I tend to feel that there are social agencies set in place and pantries and no on needs to beg. In fact, pandering is illegal on the trains. I also tend to feel that most of the beggars are alcoholics and drug addicts. And maybe they are. But who am I to make that judgement? Alcoholics and drug addicts need to eat to. Maybe some of them wake up and ask God what they are going to eat today. And maybe God can use me for his purposes.

I was baptized at birth and 40 + years later I returned … at my 1st general confession I brought this up …I only carry money when donating to the Church as I can … I don’t have a lot of extra money so I didn’t want to become a billboard as a walking coin dispenser. I didn’t want to fund alcohol/drug addict activity either. Also, they beg at traffic intersections walking between cars during red lights so I was also concerned about safety issues for eveyone on the road … which included those with little patience or empathy behaving badly due to anger should they be held up an extra 3 minutes if they miss a light,

Conflicted, I spoke to my priest who suggested I carry granola bars. I thought that was a wonderful idea, yet I felt awkward the first time I handed the pedestrian a bar saying " I don’t have money for you, but I have this.". I was thinking they would be ungrateful or even offended … I wasn’t aware at that time what it meant, fully, to “pick up your cross daily and follow Me” The sweetness and gratitude I have received each time has been so heart warming and inspiring. +AMDG+

 

[Mary_Jessica]

To live in the essence of St. Francis today is difficult…it is as if you are asking for challenges and conflicts. The essence of St Francis was very brave, and loving, he broke rules…defied the obligations of society at the time (when was the last time you saw that)…he was never ashaimed to see God in the smallest of creatures or in people of other cultures! He suffered as well and gave us a picture of the hardships and sacrifices that can bring us closer to Christ! He showed us how to love the crosses we are given, and how by accepting them we can take on other living creatures crosses as well! Such an amazing saint!

 

[JReducation]

To live in the essence of St. Francis today is difficult…it is as if you are asking for challenges and conflicts. The essence of St Francis was very brave, and loving, he broke rules…defied the obligations of society at the time (when was the last time you saw that)…he was never ashaimed to see God in the smallest of creatures or in people of other cultures! He suffered as well and gave us a picture of the hardships and sacrifices that can bring us closer to Christ! He showed us how to love the crosses we are given, and how by accepting them we can take on other living creatures crosses as well! Such an amazing saint!

But that’s still scratching the surface and that may be why many think that it is difficult to live “in his essence.”

When you get to know the man, you find that his essence is not in breaking rules, defying the system, asking for challenges, seeing God in the smallest and greatest or embracing hardships. These were all accidental to his life. These were qualities of many saints. In order to know the man one must look at several dots that must be connected.

First dot:

Francis is a man who embraces the poverty of the cross. The poverty of the cross is fulfilled when one surrenders one’s will to the will of the Father. Therefore, Francis demands of every Catholic in their particular circumstance to surrender to the will of the Father as the Father expresses it through legitimate authority: Church, state, religious superior, parents, spouses and even employers. He is so fundamental in this, that he writes in his admonitions that even when you know that authority is mistaken, you have a moral duty to obey. You’re only exempted from obedience, if authority commands something that the Church has identified as sin.

Observe very carefully. He even includes authority in matters of conscience. It’s not that you have a right to disobey, because something is contrary to your conscience. Francis does not believe this and prohibits this mindset. Why? To do the will of the Father, one must let the Church form one’s conscience. Therefore, it is going to be the Church who teaches us what is and is not sinful.

Perfect poverty is perfect obedience even to what it foolish. Foolish and sinful are not the same. Francis binds us to obey the foolish as Christ obeyed the foolish. Francis’ poverty is built on the foolishness of the cross. It’s not what people think that he had this great love for the cross. As far as he was concerned, the cross was an instrument of torture and execution. The cross becomes a sign of life, only when one embraces the idea that Jesus did not have to die on the cross, because he was not guilty of sin. However, Jesus accepts what is unnecessary for him, maybe even foolish for him, out of love for those who need this sacrifice.

The essence of Francis is to deny oneself material possessions, family name and heritage, biological family, one’s own opinions and ideas, one’s preferences and desire be free to hear the will of the Father. One hears the will of the Father through legitimate authority. Yes, the Father often asks us to do what we know is foolish or mistaken in order to strip us so that we may become living images of His Son. This is not an impossible task. Look at people who followed Francis: Clare of Assisi, Agnes of Assisi, Agnes of Prague, Louis King of France, Elizabeth of Hungary, Vincent de Paul, Francis de Sales, John Bosco, Frances Cabrini, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Teresa of Calcutta. Those are just a few of the ones who are deceased.

Second dot:

The second dot is to be found in the rite of profession that all Franciscans make, secular and regular. We do not vow to serve the poor. We do not vow to preach the gospel. We do not vow to live a life of prayer. We do not vow to teach the young or care for the sick.

However, we do vow to live as brothers and servants to each other. Fraternity is the next do that makes up the man known as Francis of Assisi. Unfortunately, as we Franciscans know all too well, the secular Catholic pays the least attention to this dimension of his life. Most secular Catholics pay more attention to his humility, his material poverty and his penances. The truth is that those were already in place in the Church when Francis came on the scene. The Holy Spirit did not need to raise up Francis of Assisi to achieve what was already up and running. Humility, penance and material poverty were all in place by those who followed Augustine, Carmel, Benedict, Basil and Norbert

 

[JReducation]

What Francis brought to the table, that no other religious family had and no other religious family has been able to duplicate, except those who follow his rule, was brotherhood. There was a need in the Church for religious to live as brothers to each other, to be attentive to each other; to be accountable to and for each other; to serve each other; to love each other more than a mother loves her children; to duplicate in their houses the love that exists within the Trinity.

There was a need in the Church for secular Catholics to live as brothers and stop bickering. They bickered over money, lands, crowns, titles, even over women. One town went to war against another, not taking into account that most of the time; they were fighting not enemies, but their own family members. This insistence on brotherhood came through most clearly in Francis’ rule for the Secular Franciscans. He prohibited the use of weapons of any kind. No one was to pledge allegiance to any realm (nation). Oaths taken in courts were to be taken only under the approval of the Church. Everyone was to share their material belongings. You lived with what you needed, not what you wanted. Anything beyond what you needed was a gift from God for the benefit of your brothers and sisters who needed those gifts.

Francis breaks with conventional religious life in order to protect fraternity. No longer were there two classes of religious. Up to that time, religious orders were divided into the Fathers and the Brothers. The Fathers were priests. They prayed the Liturgy of the Hours in choir with Gregorian chant. They celebrated the liturgy of the mass with Gregorian chant. Only a priest was allowed to enter the sanctuary. There were grills and later railings that separated the priests from the rest of the people in the chapel or church.

The brothers prayed the Office of the Paters. They prayed less hours, which allowed them more time to take on the material chores required to run a religious house. They never went on missions to preach, teach or any other apostolate. Only the Fathers went on missions.

In Francis’ community, there were no Fathers and Brothers. There were priests and laics, which is not the same as laity. Laic or lay is a baptized Catholic or Orthodox who is not ordained a cleric. But he or she ceases to be a member of the laity when he or she becomes a novice in a religious community. What made Francis’ community different was that it was a fraternity, not a real order. That came 14 years after he actually founded his order. In other words, in 1209 he receives verbal approval to live the Gospel according to his vision. But it’s not until 1223, when his final rule is approved by the Holy See and the friars are elevated to the status of an order. By that time there were about 4,000 of them. The first group to be elevated to the status of an order was the Secular Franciscans in 1221. They were called Third Order, because Francis founded them third in order of chronology. But they received the Holy See’s approval before the first and second orders. The second order is the last to be elevated to an order, long after Francis was dead.

In the early years, these men and women formed a family. Some were friars, others were nuns and the vast majority of Franciscans was and still is seculars. But here is the dot. Among the friars there were always priests. But to this day, we don’t know all of them. They were never allowed to dress differently, call themselves Father or hold special offices in the order. They were not allowed to pray the Divine Office in choir or to chant. Every friar who could read, recited the office form the breviary. Those friars who could not read, prayed the Office of the Paters. Needless to say, only those who could read were candidates for Holy Orders. This does not mean that every literate man became a priest. Every priest was literate, Literate men could be priests or laics.

They made the same vows, had the duties and rights. They used their gifts for the benefit of the community and the Church. Both priests and laics preached, if that was their gift; did manual labor, it that was their gift; or taught at the great universities. One laic who was a university scholar for many years was Anthony of Padua. Most people don’t know that Anthony was not ordained a priest until three years before his death. For 15 years, he was a friar, a preacher and a university professor, but not a priest. The reason for his ordination is a whole other story.

Among the Secular Franciscans there were also priests. Many secular priests wanted to join Francis, but their bishops would not release them. Francis admitted them to the secular order. This allowed them to remain at the service of the bishop, but living the Franciscan life. Later, many would be released and they would form the Third Oder Regular Franciscans. About five years after Francis’ death. As we can see, these men were called to be brothers to each other and to the other secular Franciscans, even when in the service of the bishop. To this day, the Secular Franciscans have more priests than do the friars, more popes than the friars and more canonized saints. OK, to be fair to the friars, the friars have more doctors than any other family in the Church. Contrary to popular belief, the Franciscans produced more scholars than did the Dominicans and Jesuits. But since we were founded as a brotherhood, we have never really paid much attention to this detail or even emphasize it in our history or recruiting. The Vatican keeps track of this kind of stuff.

The second dot is fraternity. We see this dot being lived by such groups as Opus Dei, Societies of Apostolic Life, Priestly Fraternities, secular orders, and groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Yes, the K of C are an order of brothers. They are actually an order of pontifical right. Only the pope can suppress them.

 

[JReducation]

Third dot:

Let’s go to the last, but not least important dot. This is the dot that sustains poverty and fraternity. This dot is called contemplation. Francis observes the Blessed Mother very carefully. Again, many non-Franciscans miss this, because most biographers either skip over it or mention it in passing. However, when we look to the prayers that Francis wrote, his prayers to the Blessed Mother reveal his entire ecclesiology. He is the first theologian to refer to Mary as “The Virgin Made Church”.

How does he get here? From childhood, he had been taught to love and venerate Mary. You must remember that Marian cult was much bigger among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox than among Roman Catholics. During the Middle Ages, Marian cult takes off like a rocket thanks to the work of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Dominican Friars. Francis was aware of their preaching and teaching on Mary.

Francis looks to Mary to learn how to contemplate God and how to listen to God. The closer that he gets to Mary, the more contemplative he becomes. The more contemplative he becomes, the more prayerful he becomes. The more prayerful he becomes, the better Catholic he becomes.

His contemplation of Mary leads him to see something that no one had ever seen before. If they had, they had not mentioned it, not even the Eastern Fathers. He not only acknowledges Mary as the Theotokos, but he also sees her as the virgin made Church. Christ builds his Church on the faith of Peter. But Peter’s most faithful subject is Mary. This is very hard for us to understand.

In order to understand the product of Francis’ contemplation, one must understand the early Church. Peter was the rock. Mary was among the believers. She is the perfect woman of faith. She was not above the early Church. She was not outside of the early Church. She was not exempt from membership in the Church. She was part of the Church. She was the perfect member of the Church. The Virgin Mother encompassed everything that a faithful Christian should be. Therefore, she was the Virgin made Church.

It is important to understand that Francis arrives at this profound understanding of our relationship with Mary and our relationship with the Church, as well as the relationship between the Church and Mary, through contemplation. Fraternity and poverty remain horizontal unless the Christian lives a contemplative life. The contemplative life allows us to see the vertical. The horizontal and vertical make up the cross.

So when we say that Francis is a man of the cross, it has nothing to do with crucifixes. It’s all about relationships between man and man, man and Church, and man and God. Observe that there are three parts to Francis’ cross. Why? Because he is the Trinitarian Disciple. Hence, after his death, the Church gives him the title of Seraphic Father. Like the seraphs, his love for God burns like fire. His nearness to God in the hierarchy of saints is superseded only by Mary. In 2009, Pope Benedict compared him to Paul. He said that in the hierarchy of saints, Francis was on the same level with Paul. Not because of their achievements, but because of their love. We know that the other Apostles are at the level in the Communion of Saints.

We can live the same mission as Francis. To do so, we have to embrace his vision of detachment, family and contemplation. These three qualities are found to perfection only in the Trinity. To live as Francis did, one has to become a disciple of the Trinity.

Cast the net into the deep, beyond the more shallow images that we have of Francis, the little poor man, the humble man, the penitential man, the chaste man, the stigmatist, the rejected son, and so forth. He was all of this, but this is only the outer skin of the man named Francis of Assisi.

The essence of Francis of Assisi is much deeper and yet much simpler.

1. Detach from everything that is not God and does not lead to God.
2. Like Christ, be an obedient son of the Father and brother to all men.
3. Like Mary, let God speak first and love the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Marauder]

Those men who were happy with Elias way called themselves the Conventual friars, because they lived in large houses called convents. They still do to this day. In fact, they run the shrines in Assisi, because no other Franciscan takes on such gigantic houses and places of worship, not even for the honor of Francis.

Just saw the reactivation of this thread. Lots of great information. Since most of my interaction with 1st Order Franciscans are Conventual Franciscans I had to comment on this. I don’t know whether you are over simplifying this just for clarity or what, but the Custos of the Holy Land are not OFM Conv, they are OFM without any qualifiers. Yes, since they have responsibility for many of shrines, convents, monasteries, etc. in the Holy Land they may live similar to Conventuals but they are still OFM. They don’t “own” the shrines, just manage them for the Holy See. I believe OFM Conventual does have a presence there but the Custos has the larger presence. I may be wrong here, but I thought the Conventuals officially branched after Elias. Yes they followed some of his ideas but not him personally.

 

[JReducation]

Just saw the reactivation of this thread. Lots of great information. Since most of my interaction with 1st Order Franciscans are Conventual Franciscans I had to comment on this. I don’t know whether you are over simplifying this just for clarity or what, but the Custos of the Holy Land are not OFM Conv, they are OFM without any qualifiers. Yes, since they have responsibility for many of shrines, convents, monasteries, etc. in the Holy Land they may live similar to Conventuals but they are still OFM. They don’t “own” the shrines, just manage them for the Holy See. I believe OFM Conventual does have a presence there but the Custos has the larger presence. I may be wrong here, but I thought the Conventuals officially branched after Elias. Yes they followed some of his ideas but not him personally.

The Friars Minor in the Holy Land are Observants. Their situation is very different from that of the Friars Minor Conventual for many reasons.

1. The Custody of the Holy Land is a Franciscan province, a patriarchy and the custody of the Holy See.
2. The Observants were sent there as missionaries and later recruited by the papacy to govern the newly founded custody. They have a juridical presence as well as a pastoral presence. Originally, they were a province and later a custody within the province. The custos is a different kind of animal from a provincial superior.
3. Their relationship to the facilities that they serve is very different from the relationship of the Conventual Friars to the shrines in Assisi.
4. The shrines in Assisi were built by the Conventuals and the convents attached to them were built for the Conventuals. For a long time, they were the owners. I believe that’s no longer the case. If memory serves me well, those shrines were given to the Diocese of Assisi by one of the resent popes either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Like these, the Conventuals got their name from the type of houses in which they lived. Architecturally, they’re really monasteries. People often refer to them as monasteries. Canonically, they are not monasteries. They have no papal enclosure and the residents are not monks or nuns, hence the term convent. One of the more famous convents is Grey Friars Hall at Oxford.

But to keep the history simple, suffice it to say that the biggest distinction between the Friars Minor Conventual and the other two obediences of the Friars Minor is their large convents dating back to the days of Brother Elias. The other differences between the three obediences have more to do with things that Francis never foresaw and thus never addressed in the rule. As the friars addressed the unforeseen, they did not agree on many things. At one point, there were over 30 autonomous groups of Friars Minor until Pope Leo XIII unified all of the smaller groups into the Franciscans. Today, there are the Coventuals, Franciscans, and Capuchins. Each has its own constitution and government.

For those out there who don’t know this, a constitution is not a rule. A constitution is a set of statutes that address what is not in the rule. It also contains commentaries on those parts of the rule that can be confusing with the passage of time. Let’s face it, we don’t speak medieval Italian. Even though the rule was written in Latin, the person who wrote it was thinking in 13th century Italian and translating. So much for the theory that you can’t go wrong if you stick with Latin. Ask the Benedictines, Franciscans and Augustinians who follow one rule each, but have enough branches to shade a forest.

That’s why we call them friaries instead of convents, even though Latin says conventus.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Marauder]

I hope this helps.

As usual it does. The error was on my part as I should have realized. I read your post several times and for some reason I kept reading shrines in Assisi as shrines in Israel/Holy Land. My mistake. I also know about the difference in the Shrines in Assisi. I have heard the “joke” between the Conventuals and the OFMs that has the OFM friar saying “The Coventuals may have his body, but we have his soul” referring to the Portiuncula.

Sorry again, need to remember to read clearer early in the morning.