Thoughts on traditionalism and the religious

[TrueLight]

According to many, we are not to experience any emotion during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Experiencing emotions, in my opinion, is not synonymous with holding hands around the altar, etc. Surely one can have prayer meetings for that.

In a recent thread, someone said a Bishop was coming down to pray for the congregation to get the Holy Spirit. Hmm.

I really don’t remember seeing a comment that one is not allowed to experience emotions, but just in case one person said that, it doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. I think a lot of traditionalists feel emotions at mass even if it doesn’t show outwardly.

Think of a funeral and those whose culture involves wailing and those who finds it culturally appropriate to cry silent tears. Both groups feel immense pain but express it differently.

I have a new friend who attends an FSSP parish and she cries all the time. In fact, she cried at my first communion.

 

[jwinch2]

The first post was a rant born out of frustration. The thread struggled along and developed somewhat. Now you have brought it full circle.

I know as human beings, we need to rant, but what purpose does it serve to rant against a group except to incite defensiveness?

When I ranted about seeing a bunch of threads criticizing traditionalists, you told me that I should just avoid them.

Fair enough I guess. I would suggest that is why I did not comment in those threads. This thread is on that exact topic.

 

[jwinch2]

Experiencing emotions, in my opinion, is not synonymous with holding hands around the altar, etc. Surely one can have prayer meetings for that.

You misinterpreted my statement. There are two issues there. The first being emotion. Here is example of that. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567188&highlight=emotions+at+mass

The second is the organic development of holding hands during the Our Father.

Oh, and its less about the group than it is the double standards that I was referring to.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The topic is “traditionalist and the religious”. Please return to the topic.

 

[JReducation]

Experiencing emotions, in my opinion, is not synonymous with holding hands around the altar, etc. Surely one can have prayer meetings for that.

In a recent thread, someone said a Bishop was coming down to pray for the congregation to get the Holy Spirit. Hmm.

I really don’t remember seeing a comment that one is not allowed to experience emotions, but just in case one person said that, it doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. I think a lot of traditionalists feel emotions at mass even if it doesn’t show outwardly.

Think of a funeral and those whose culture involves wailing and those who finds it culturally appropriate to cry silent tears. Both groups feel immense pain but express it differently.

I have a new friend who attends an FSSP parish and she cries all the time. In fact, she cried at my first communion.

You misinterpreted my statement. There are two issues there. The first being emotion. Here is example of that. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567188&highlight=emotions+at+mass

The second is the organic development of holding hands during the Our Father.

Oh, and its less about the group than it is the double standards that I was referring to.

HELP!!!

I’m really lost now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

HELP!!!

I’m really lost now.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Its not you, its me. I haven’t slept in days and as a result I am not communicating clearly, and I get annoyed more easily than normal. Furthermore, I did not do a good job of tying my comments in with the theme of the thread. Per the moderator’s comments, I don’t want to risk derailing the conversation any further than it already has been.

My general point which was likely lost in my rambling is that I believe that there has to be more to being a “traditional” Catholic than the EF of the Mass and Chant. Looking to the orders and congregations, seeing how the Mass was celebrated prior to the development of the Tridentine form, etc., are all methods by which we can see Church tradition in a more complete manner. Things such as the Charismatic movement, forms of music other than pipe organ and chant, and spirituality often have deeply Catholic roots that cannot be seen if one only looks specific areas of Church tradition. As you correctly stated, many of those things can be found by looking at the traditions of the various Religious Orders.

I hope that helps to clear things up to some extent.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

My general point which was likely lost in my rambling is that I believe that there has to be more to being a “traditional” Catholic than the EF of the Mass and Chant. Looking to the orders and congregations, seeing how the Mass was celebrated prior to the development of the Tridentine form, etc., are all methods by which we can see Church tradition in a more complete manner. Things such as the Charismatic movement, forms of music other than pipe organ and chant, and spirituality often have deeply Catholic roots that cannot be seen if one only looks specific areas of Church tradition. As you correctly stated, many of those things can be found by looking at the traditions of the various Religious Orders.

The funny part is, I personally really like chant and I also prefer pipe organ in the music of the liturgy. However, it isn’t always about my preferences. I guess what bugs me is the cherry picking of which aspects of tradition we hold dear, and the dismissal of others. As you have noted multiple times in other threads, there is a general lack of understanding of Religious Orders and Congregations among the laity which probably leads to, or at least is a contributing factor for, much of what I am suggesting.

Peace,

 

[Warrenton]

I think that what is happening with the laity is very similar to what happened with children and youth. We passed laws and created programs to protect the rights of children and youth and to encourage them to take their rightful place in society and contribute according to their state in life. Before we knew it, parents no longer had rights, just duties and the young dominated and still dominate the world’s economy. The economy targets people under 40.

The analogy is not apt. You give numerous examples of lay missions, which are claimed to source from Vatican 2. Hence, Vatican 2 gave the laity certain obligations.

In contrast, Child welfare laws generally exclude children from the workplace, e.g., from driving, from purchasing or possessing various things, from engaging in certain conduct.

In the case of child welfare, the rights of the parents are not usupred by children, but rather are usupred by the state in its battle against the parents.

Rome herself stands in the place of the state under your analogy. Hence, under your analogy, responsibilty for the rebellion of the laity would devolve back to Rome.

As a traditionalist, I am reluctant to press the matter to that extent.

However, I would note that it appears inconsistent when some complain bitterly of any conciliatory move to the prior spirituality.

To select but one case out of many we could choose from, there was a west coast bishop who attempted to argue against the reformed translation on the ground that it was undertaken in too much haste and would be confusing. Coming from a diocese that totally changed the mass within less than half the time this translation was under review and preparation, and from a diocese that has no less than four canons to choose from, the objections seemed (at best)contrived.

Since the claimed problems are so plainly not the real problem, it begs the question, why not just come out and state the real objections plainly? I don’t have an answer to that question, nor have I yet read one that appeared credible.

Getting back to the thrust of Melchior’s argument, the thought occurs that when it comes to traditionalism, perhaps the debate is not properly framed. If Melchior’s idea can be pressed a bit farther, and applied with equality on both sides of the question, maybe the template of the religious, and more particularly Order missions, could serve as model for the way forward.

You, Brother, have frequently posted on the purposes and distinctions between ordered religious and secular clergy and the laity. Franciscans, Augustinians, Benedictines, all exist because the Church perceives that these spiritualities are different, and “lead” (as you put it) the bulk of the Catholic world forward on their path to salvation.

Perhaps the traditionalist perspective now occupies a position in the life of the Church that stands in parallel to the Orders.

One wonders if this could be a more efficient way of addressing what sometimes has been termed as the hermenuetic of continuity.

 

[Warrenton]

I have to say that I have begun to feel that many who claim to be traditional on this forum are nothing of the sort. They are focused on the EF of the Mass and the Council of Trent. … That isn’t tradition, that is blindness.

I read your thoughts on organic development with interest.

Was the near total suppression, within a few years, of a mass form that had been in use since before the Norman Conquest, “organic?”

The question is rhetorical, of course. However, it frames the issue we are discussing nicely.

Traditionalists have been confronted with the rapid abolition and then the sytematic destruction of nearly everything they treasured, and made into virtual dissidents within their own Church. They faced, and continue to face, the Hobson’s choice of exclusion in one way or another or participation in methods of worship with which they are uncomfortable. Any means they employ for redress bring down howls of protest, while on the other side, nearly any excess is tolerated, and in some cases, enshrined as a positive development.

Traditionalists have to begin somewhere. Brother JR wrote rather touchingly about the ancient mendicant tradition of “going a-preaching.” A picnic of traditionalist Catholics is probably one of the few modern venues where the itenerant Franciscan would be assured of both an audience, a meal, and alms. However, that is just one of many things Catholics have lost over the past several centuries. Brother might have mentioned with equal force communal Angelus prayers, third order men and women in habits like St. Martin de Porres, and evensong.

While most traditionalists probably would welcome the return of roving friars, the appeal would be lost of many Catholics today, unfamiliar as they are with the history of their faith beyond 1970 or so. However, everybody agrees that the central act of Catholic worship is the mass.

That’s why traditionalists begin with the tridentine mass.

 

[JReducation]

Traditionalists have to begin somewhere. Brother JR wrote rather touchingly about the ancient mendicant tradition of “going a-preaching.” A picnic of traditionalist Catholics is probably one of the few modern venues where the itenerant Franciscan would be assured of both an audience, a meal, and alms.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Where I live the Traditionalist movement seems to be mostly middle class and up. If that’s true for the greater part of the movement, then this is not the picnic where Christ wants the mendicants to be. That’s the reason that the mendicants are closing parishes or giving them back to the bishops. However, if you want to give us a sandwich, we’ll gratefully take it and be on our way.

Brother might have mentioned with equal force communal Angelus prayers, third order men and women in habits like St. Martin de Porres, and evensong.

The reason that I don’t mention it, is because that’s not common in the mendicant tradition. It never was. We still have Lay Dominicans and Secular Franciscans who live with the friars or with the nuns in the cloister. They do wear the habit. But it has never been the norm. These have always been exceptions to the rule. Most Secular Franciscans are people like: Thomas More, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth of Hungary, Louis King of France, Pius X, John XXIII, Francis de Sales, Giana Molla, Louis Pasteur. Lay Dominicans are more like Paul VI, Pierre Giorgio Frasatti, Catherine of Siena, and many others who lived in the secular world and did not wear habits or wore them for formal community functions.

While most traditionalists probably would welcome the return of roving friars, the appeal would be lost of many Catholics today, unfamiliar as they are with the history of their faith beyond 1970 or so.

Actually, the roving friar is becoming a very common sight today, but in the poorer areas of the world and our country. They don’t celebrate mass, hear confessions, run parishes or do any of the things that a group such as the SSPX would do. They live in the neighborhood and walk the streets, pick up the homeless, take the hungry to soup kitchens, pray in front of abortuaries, visit the sick and shut-in, etc. They have their community mass, called the conventual mass. Some of these houses welcome the laity and some do not. It depends on the size of the chapel and the physical arrangement. Since only half of these roving friars are priests, there are not too many offering confessions. However, those who are priests have been known to hear confessions even in subway stations. But most Traditionalists do not like confession face to face or in the new rite. They probably would not want to go to confession sitting on a park bench. The ones whom I know, don’t hang out in the same neighborhoods as the roving friars.

I know that the Franciscans of the Eternal Word get many Traditionalists visiting them at both EWTN and the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament. Those friars do not rove, but they are not parish priests either. They are preachers in the traditional sense. Yet, their life is very hidden. If you watch the mass on EWTN, you never see a conventual mass. That’s because the friars have mass in their own chapel. They do not have mass in common with the laity. I’m not sure why no. I’ve never asked. Now that I think of it, I should ask. I’m curious too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Correct me if I’m wrong. Where I live the Traditionalist movement seems to be mostly middle class and up. If that’s true for the greater part of the movement, then this is not the picnic where Christ wants the mendicants to be. That’s the reason that the mendicants are closing parishes or giving them back to the bishops. However, if you want to give us a sandwich, we’ll gratefully take it and be on our way.

Br

I doubt this is the case with the movement in Africa, Asia or South America, though it may be the case in some of the west.

Also Br surely you’re not saying mendicants only want to be with the poor?

 

[JReducation]

Br

I doubt this is the case with the movement in Africa, Asia or South America, though it may be the case in some of the west.

Also Br surely you’re not saying mendicants only want to be with the poor?

Look at the whole Franciscan reform today. In fact, some communities have it in their constitutions that if the neighborhood becomes middle class, the friars are to leave. That’s how seriously the mendicant return to the roots takes this.

The Missionaries of Charity are not allowed to live anywhere else, but with the poor. The Missionaries of the Poor live nowhere else, but with the poor. The Carmelites and Trinitarians are moving in that direction too. It’s not only the older mendicants, but also the younger mendicant communities too. Obviously, no one is going to throw a middle class person out on his ear if he comes to one of our houses for counsel or needs some kind of help. That would also be uncharacteristic of the mendicant movement.

The Dominicans are different. They were founded to be preachers across all social and economic strata. But the other mendicants were founded to live and work among the poor and only the poor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

Look at the whole Franciscan reform today. In fact, some communities have it in their constitutions that if the neighborhood becomes middle class, the friars are to leave. That’s how seriously the mendicant return to the roots takes this.

The Missionaries of Charity are not allowed to live anywhere else, but with the poor. The Missionaries of the Poor live nowhere else, but with the poor. The Carmelites and Trinitarians are moving in that direction too. It’s not only the older mendicants, but also the younger mendicant communities too. Obviously, no one is going to throw a middle class person out on his ear if he comes to one of our houses for counsel or needs some kind of help. That would also be uncharacteristic of the mendicant movement.

The Dominicans are different. They were founded to be preachers across all social and economic strata. But the other mendicants were founded to live and work among the poor and only the poor.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br

Thanks for that.

I honestly can’t believe thats how far things have come but apparently it has.

 

[TrueLight]

Correct me if I’m wrong. Where I live the Traditionalist movement seems to be mostly middle class and up.

I guess it depends on your location.

I haven’t noticed anyone rolling in money at the few traditionalist parishes I visited, although of course you can’t always tell just by looking at someone.

I do know some couples who homeschool, which means they are living on one salary.

 

[Warrenton]

Correct me if I’m wrong. Where I live the Traditionalist movement seems to be mostly middle class and up. If that’s true for the greater part of the movement, then this is not the picnic where Christ wants the mendicants to be.

At least in the circles I am familiar with, I would say “solidly” middle class (in American usage). Today, this means we are somewhere in the no man’s land between having many comforts and losing everything if one thing goes awry.

The common thread is that traditionalists believe what means lie at their disposal are put in the service of preserving the old mass.

While traditionalists enjoy the tridentine relaxation of public confession and penance, they do see it as a gift (like a kneeler is a gift). I for one would confess anywhere. On the last day, it’s coming out anyway.

 

[JReducation]

Br

Thanks for that.

I honestly can’t believe thats how far things have come but apparently it has.

It’s not what things have come to, but about recovering tradition. The older mendicants have to go back in order to go forward. The newer mendicant communities take their example from the early mendicants such as Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians. Most look to the Franciscans of the Middle Ages.

Part of recovering and preserving tradition is about shedding things that we picked up from the time that we were founded to today, which are contrary to the vision of the founder. As I said in another thread, what is good for the religious community, in the end is good for the Church. The Church is nurtured by the spiritual strength of the religious community. Pope Benedict described the religious community as the heart of the Church. We all want a healthy heart. Therefore, each community must go back to the charism of its founder. You can’t renew unless you rediscover.

I guess it depends on your location.

I haven’t noticed anyone rolling in money at the few traditionalist parishes I visited, although of course you can’t always tell just by looking at someone.

I do know some couples who homeschool, which means they are living on one salary.

At least in the circles I am familiar with, I would say “solidly” middle class (in American usage). Today, this means we are somewhere in the no man’s land between having many comforts and losing everything if one thing goes awry.

The common thread is that traditionalists believe what means lie at their disposal are put in the service of preserving the old mass.

While traditionalists enjoy the tridentine relaxation of public confession and penance, they do see it as a gift (like a kneeler is a gift). I for one would confess anywhere. On the last day, it’s coming out anyway.

These would be communities where you would not find let’s say Franciscans of the Renewal, Franciscans of the Strict Observance, Franciscans of Life, Franciscans of Peace, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word or other renewal communities. The mandate to these communities was to live and work among those who are on welfare, who are immigrant poor, homeless, unwanted and forgotten. It was Bl. John Paul’s hope that through the renewal communities, the larger communities would gradually be transformed and return to the 13th century way of life. It seems to be having effect.

I think it may have been two years ago, I could be wrong. A group of Friars Minor (OFM), which is the largest Franciscan community, was transferred from one place to another. They had to travel over 100 miles. They put their belongings in their backpacks and with their superior, they walked the 100 miles.

There were two other friars who were invited to go to work in Costa Rica (I believe). They were stationed in MA. They were given about $100.00 and a backpack. They hitchhiked all the way to Costa Rica. In my own community, I have all kinds of health problems. I’m getting old. That’s the bottom line. Because the poor have no medical insurance, we have no insurance. I go to public clinics and wait four hours to see a doctor. That’s part of Catholic tradition.

Sometimes I meet some really interesting people. Other times, I just watch TV in the waiting room. I have to confess that some of the talk shows during the day are goofy. I find no socially redeeming value in them. They’re not even informative or funny. Who watches this stuff, besides people in waiting rooms?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jmj1984]

It’s not what things have come to, but about recovering tradition. The older mendicants have to go back in order to go forward. The newer mendicant communities take their example from the early mendicants such as Franciscans, Servites, Trinitarians. Most look to the Franciscans of the Middle Ages.

Part of recovering and preserving tradition is about shedding things that we picked up from the time that we were founded to today, which are contrary to the vision of the founder. As I said in another thread, what is good for the religious community, in the end is good for the Church. The Church is nurtured by the spiritual strength of the religious community. Pope Benedict described the religious community as the heart of the Church. We all want a healthy heart. Therefore, each community must go back to the charism of its founder. You can’t renew unless you rediscover.

Br

I cannot see the Church dividing religious orders on the basis of social class. Besides which who defines what ‘poor’ means? Poverty in Europe and the USA is one thing, in Africa its another, its absolute poverty, does that mean all those orders should up sticks and move to Africa? At what amount of $$$$ is someone not poor? How much % of a community must have X amount of $$$$ before the community moves away? I’m sorry but this is not something I can agree with, the business of all clergy is the salvation of souls, yes they can have a particular mission towards certain types of people but for that to mean that they only minister to certain social classes and not others

Did not St Francis go to minister to muslims and were not Franciscans martyed in Islamic countries for preaching the gospel? Who knows if they were poor or not, for that matter many of the third order members you mentioned were anything but poor, in fact they were distinctly ‘middle class’.

As for going back to the Charism of the founder I like Romano Amerio remain unconvinced that this is what religious orders are doing, if they did the Dominicans for example would be in next to absolute poverty and for that matter so would the Franciscans. I do not dispute their poverty but it is certainly nowhere as extreme as it was in the days of St Dominic and St Francis. The rule is certainly more lax than it was in the past (I do not mean that as a criticism at all) or what would the point of this website? Br. Alexis Bugnolo certainly wants a stricter observation of the rule.

 

[jmj1984]

Romano Amerio addresses religious orders and congregations specifically in his book ‘Iota Unum’ and deals with the matter in quite some depth.

The fundamental points he makes are that:

1)There has been a massive decay of religious life, he states 'The greatest ruin had occured among the Dominicans falling from 10,000 to 6,000, the Capuchins, 16,000 to 12,000, the Jesuits 36,000 to 26,000 and the Salesians 22,000 to 17,000’. (p319) Aside from these statistics he quotes Cardinal Danielou who said 'I think, that there is at present a very grave crisis in religious life and that people should not be talking about a renewal but a decay’ (p320)

2)There have been massive innovations amongst religious congregations, he gives as an example the Salesians whose founder had stated that to move its Centre from Turin to Rome would be the ruin of his work but which nevertheless did so in 1972. (p320) He further points out that 'Stability’ once a fundamental part of many religious orders has become largely sidelined. He speaks of another reforming chapter mentioned in the Obsservatore Romano 'which has removed from the founders constitutions every religious practice…and every form of mortification, and has questioned the value of the vow of obedience by allowing a member the right of conscientious objection’ (p331)

3)The renewal of religious life has to do with ‘*opening up to the world’ * and has little to do with the traditional type of reform in religious orders (P321)

4)That the traditional purpose of religious life ‘to save ones soul’ has been forgotten and instead it has become focused on 'developing the personality of its members in this world and in the service of man’ He references an interview by the Capuchins of the Swiss province in 1982 where they stated that departures from the Rule were in fact new ways of following the rule. 'The doings of Capuchins who came back from the missions, left their communities, dropped any activities properly belonging to religious, said they wanted to set off in search of a new experience of God, went about living the life of vagabonds or hermits, avoided the obligations they had undertaken, followed faith in man as their guiding principle, undertook philanthropic activities and in doing so said they did not mean Catholic activities but activities of men drawn up on the basis of common faith in man, were all held up as praiseworthy’ (p324)

5)He also claims that Religious orders have as a whole during this renewal, become much less mortified (p326)

6)Lastly he also criticises the general undermining of Obedience which has been undermined by the idea that 'authority is worth nothing more than the worth of its arguments’ and the idea of ‘* conscientious objection’* (p328-330)

Of course most of these events were from the 60’s-80’s, I do not know if they still occur or if the book is outdated, but it certainly is worthwhile examining the analysis of a prominent theologian like Romano Amerio.

 

[JReducation]

Br

I cannot see the Church dividing religious orders on the basis of social class.

The Holy Spirit reveals his wishes to the founders and the Church approves. For example, Bl. Mother Teresa, the Church said that there was no need for a new congregation in India. Mother presented that this was not her idea, that Christ has told he to do this and that he wanted an Indian congregation to spread around the world. The matter was sent to the Holy See. The Holy See responded that though this was against Church law, it could not deny the request, even though it did not know why not. Those sisters are not allowed to minister to middle class.

The Friars of the Renewal had a similar experience. Six of them heard the same voice, to return to the roots. They applied to the General Minister of the Capuchin Franciscans. He too said that the request was unusual, but he could not deny it. The request was granted. They stepped out into the South Bronx. They took the Capuchin Franciscan constitutions of 1516. The constitutions say that the friars must pick up and leave when the local people rise to a level of sustainability and the friars are not to minister in parishes, because this is the proper domain of secular priests, not friars, priests or not. The same happened with the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance, the Franciscans of Peace and is happening all around the globe. The poverty is very strict. Friars sleep on floors instead of beds. They don’t have medical insurance. They do not work in parishes or schools, so they have no salary. They live off of donations from the laity. But they never go hungry. The Franciscans of the Renewal travel around the world as do the Missionaries of Charity.

Now, what is happening is that the larger communities are seeing that it’s possible and are revising their constitutions to fit the rule. Remember, you cannot change the rule. The rule is absolute until the Second Coming. Francis does not allow the rule to be changed. If anyone attempts to change the rule he is to be excommunicated. What happened was that questions arose that Francis did not anticipate. Constitutions had to be written to address those questions. Today, what Bl. John Paul said was that those constitutions have to be consistent with the rule. If they are not, then they have to be revised in order to fit the rule.

I can agree with, the business of all clergy is the salvation of souls,

Not all of the mendicant orders were founded as clerical orders. For example, the Servites, Trinitarians and Franciscans are not orders of clerics. We have clergymen who enter the order to be brothers. Just as Cistercians enter the order to be brothers. There are several orders like that. Priests are admitted provided that they serve the Church according to the mind of the founder.

yes they can have a particular mission towards certain types of people but for that to mean that they only minister to certain social classes and not others

Many communities were founded only to serve a target population. Just as some were founded to serve the young or the sick. Others were founded to live among the poor, not just serve the poor. Not every religious community is founded to serve anyone. Franciscans were not founded to serve anyone. They were founded to live in obedience among the poor. Whatever service they provided depended on the needs of the neighbors. Francis never wrote a specific apostolate into the rule. He did write poverty into the rule.

Did not St Francis go to minister to muslims and were not Franciscans martyed in Islamic countries for preaching the gospel?

In fact Franciscans have lived among the Muslims and Jews for 800 years in Jerusalem. The pope founded the Custody of the Holy Land and gave it to them to run, with the mandate not to preach to the Muslims or the Jews, precisely because the friars had been martyred in Morrocco. The Sultan of Dalmietta, had contracted with Francis that he would allow his brothers to pass through what is today Egypt and Jordan into Palestine, provided that Francis agree not to try to convert them. Francis agreed and the pope ratified the agreement to this day. They live there serving the poor: Christians, Muslims and Jews.

As for going back to the Charism of the founder I like Romano Amerio remain unconvinced that this is what religious orders are doing, if they did the Dominicans for example would be in next to absolute poverty

Dominicans are an order of priests. Dominic did not give them a rule of life. They follow the Rule of Augustine. The Rule of Augustine focuses on contemplative life. While Dominic wrote a constitution for them in which he directed them to be poor, the constitution is not binding. Dominic left wiggle room for them to edit and delete from the constitution and even suspend it in order to preach. What they cannot touch is the Rule of Augustine. That too is sealed by a Papal Bull as is the Rule of Francis. However, Pope Innocent III, anticipating that they would be unable to live such poverty, if they were to be an order of priests, did not accept Dominic’s proposed rule. Instead, he gave Dominic the Augustinian Rule. Dominic’s proposed rule became their constitution, which they change through consensus. It does not have to concur with the Rule of Augustine. It just can’t contradict it.

 

[JReducation]

The rule is certainly more lax than it was in the past (I do not mean that as a criticism at all) or what would the point of this website? Br. Alexis Bugnolo certainly wants a stricter observation of the rule.

This is not an approved Franciscan site. Alexis Bugnolo is not a member of the Franciscan family. He operate independently. He even says so on his site. What they did here was to copy and paste some writings from another site.

This is from the constitutions of the Franciscan Renewal

Art 38 The friars will always reside in areas noted for poverty. If the neighborhood changes due to social or economic development which displaces the poor, the friars must find residence in another poor area. The friary is then to be returned to its rightful owner, taking into account the owner’s needs and rights. The friaries of our community should be poor, simple and austere. They should have no look of luxury, nor contain those conveniences commonly sought after by society.

Franciscan Renewal

Here is a young mendicant congregation. They only live and serve among the poor. Missionaries of the Poor

**Our Purpose

The purpose of our Institute is to fulfill Christ’s desire to be present in this world, to have Him use us within His Mystical Body in order to accomplish His life and work among the poor. We do this through

A life of prayer which makes us aware of God’s special love, His special favor and plan for us;
A life of love of the members in our religious community,
A life of service of the poor;
A life of loyalty and dedicated service in the building up of our Roman Catholic Church.**

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF