Papal documents relating to Franciscan poverty
Return to Studies
in medieval and early modern intellectual history
|
POPE CLEMENT V, EXIVI DE PARADISO
Translated by John Kilcullen and John Scott
Copyright
(c) 1996, 1998, R.J. Kilcullen, J.R. Scott.
"I have gone out from paradise, I have said, 'I
will water the garden of plantations'", says that heavenly
gardener, who -- truly the fount of wisdom, the word of God, from the
Father and remaining in the Father, begotten from eternity in these
last days, with the Holy Spirit forming him, made flesh in the
Virgin's womb -- has gone out a man to accomplish the arduous task of
the redemption of the human race, giving himself as an exemplar of
heavenly life, offering himself to men. But, since for the most part,
burdened by the cares of mortal life, man began to turn the gaze of
his mind away from the contemplation of such an exemplar, our true
Solomon made among the rest a certain garden of delight in the soil
[solio: substitute solo?] of the militant Church, far from the stormy
waves of the world, in which more quietly and more securely one might
be occupied [vocaretur: substitute vacaretur, as in Friedberg] with
things to be contemplated and observed in the works of such an
exemplar; he entered into this world to water it with the fruitful
waters of spiritual grace and teaching. This garden indeed is the
holy religion of the Brothers Minor, which, firmly closed round on
all sides by the walls of regular observance, content within itself
with God alone, is abundantly adorned by the new plantations of its
sons. Coming to this, the beloved son of God gathers the myrrh of
mortifying penitence, together with spices which, with sweetness
marvellous to all, surround it with the odour of attractive holiness.
Here is that form and Rule of heavenly life, which that extraordinary
confessor of Christ, saint Francis, described, teaching by word, and
equally by example, that it should be observed by his sons.
Because, however, the devout professors and imitators
of the said holy Rule - as the alumni and true sons of so great a
father too - were striving, just as also they are fervently striving,
firmly to observe the foregoing Rule in its purity and to the full,
taking note that certain things are contained in the text {serie} of
the rule that could convey a doubtful sense, they prudently had
recourse in time past to the apex of the apostolic office to have an
explanation of them, so that, having been made certain by it [the
pope], to whose feet also they were subjected by that Rule, they
should, with all doubts driven off,be able to serve the Lord, with
full charity of conscience. Many of our predecessors, the Roman
pontiffs, in succession gave ear and mind (as was worthy) to their
pious and just supplications, and explained those things that seemed
doubtful, published some things, and granted some, as seemed
expedient for the consciences of the Brothers and the pure observance
of their state. However, since commonly, devout consciences, which
are terrified at any wandering in [from] God's way, are wont to fear
fault where there is none, the consciences of all those Brothers have
not been so fully quieted by the said explanations but that some
waves of doubt relating to some things concerning the Rule and their
state are generated and arise in them, as is brought to our ears
often and concerning very many matters in public and private
consistories. Accordingly, it has been requested humbly of us by
those Brothers, that {quatenus} we should take care, of the benignity
of the apostolic see, to provide opportune remedies of explanation
for the before mentioned doubts which have occurred, and can occur in future.
We, therefore (whose mind from a tender age has been
fervent {efferbuit} with pious devotion toward such professors of the
Rule, and to that whole Order) are now by the common care of the
pastoral rule that we unworthily bear, so much the more ardently
stirred up to foster them and more kindly and attentively to bestow
on them gracious favours, the more frequently we reflect with intent
mind on the plentiful fruits we see come forth continually for the
whole of the universal Church from their exemplary life and salutary
teaching; moved by the so pious intention of the supplicants, we have
decided that our efforts should be directed to completing diligently
what is asked, and we have caused those doubts to be examined
diligently by many arch bishops and bishops, and masters of theology,
and others who are literate, prudent and discrete.
First of all, therefore, because we find at the
beginning of the said Rule: "The rule and life of the Brothers
Minor is this, namely to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ by living in obedience, without property and in chastity";
again, below: "And when the year of probation is complete, let
them be received to obedience, promising always to observe that life
and the Rule"; again, near the end of the Rule: "let us
observe poverty and humility and the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which we have firmly promised" -- it has been doubted
whether the Brothers of the same order are bound by the profession of
their Rule to all the precepts as well as all the counsels, of the
Gospel, some saying that they are obliged to all, others asserting
that they are obliged only to those three counsels, namely, "to
live in obedience, in chastity and without property", and to
those things that are placed in the Rule under obligatory words, we (
sticking to the footsteps of our predecessors concerning this
article, following it up more clearly in one respect) have decided
that it should be answered to the said doubt that, since any person's
determinate vow has to be considered as certain, one who vows the
rule cannot be said to be bound, by the force of such a vow, to those
Gospel counsels that are not placed in the Rule. And, indeed, this is
proved to have been the intention of blessed Francis, the founder of
the Rule, by the fact that he placed some Gospel counsels in the
Rule, [praemissis: substitute praetermissis] and passed over others.
For if by the words: "The Rule and Life of the Brothers Minor is
this" etc., he had intended to bind them to all the Gospel
counsels, it would have been superfluous and nugatory for him to have
expressed some of them in the Rule and suppressed the rest. Since
however the nature of a restrictive term {habeat} implies this, that
it excludes from itself extraneous things in such a way that it
includes the rest that pertain to it, we declare and say that the
said brothers are by their profession of the Rule obliged not only to
those three vows taken bare and absolute, but are also bound to
fulfil all those things pertinent to those aforesaid three that the
Rule itself posits. For if they were bound only to these three
aforesaid, promising precisely and barely that they will observe the
Rule by living in "obedience, chastity and without
property", and were not bound also to all the things contained
in the Rule that modify these three: they would for nothing and in
vain utter the words, "I promise always to observe this
Rule", since from these words no obligation would arise. However
it is not to be thought that blessed Francis intended the professors
of this rule to be equally obliged in respect to all the things
contained in the Rule modifying the three vows, or to other things
expressed in it, but rather he decreed plainly that, by the force of
the words, in respect of certain of them transgression is mortal, and
in respect of some others not, since to some of them he adds a word
of precept, or of something equivalent to it, and in respect of
others he is content with other words.
Again, because, besides the things placed in the Rule
expressly by word of precept and exhortation or admonition, some are
inserted with a word added of imperative mode, affirmative or
negative: it has been until now doubted whether they were bound to
those things as to points having the force of precept: and since (as
we have understood) this doubt is not diminished, but is increased,
from the fact that our predecessor of happy memory, Pope Nicholas
III, is known to have declared that those Brothers are by their
profession of their Rule {astricti} obliged to those Gospel counsels
that are expressed in the Rule as precepts or inhibitions, or under
equivalent words, and nevertheless, to the observance of all of those
things that are brought before them in the same Rule under obligatory
words: the aforesaid brothers have supplicated that we should deign
to explain, to save their consciences, which of them should be
counted as equivalent to precepts, and obligatory. We, therefore, who
delight in their pure consciences, taking note that in matters
relating to the salvation of the soul, the safer part should be held
to avoid grave remorse of conscience, say that although the brothers
are not bound to the observance of all that is put in the Rule under
words of imperative mode, as to the observance of precepts or of
their equivalent, it is nevertheless {expedit} advantageous for the
Brothers for observing the purity and rigour of the Rule that they
should know themselves to be obliged, as to the equivalent of
precepts, to the things noted here below. In order that these things
that can seem equivalent to precepts by the force of the words, or at
least by reason of the subject matter which they deal with, or for
both reasons, may be had in summary: we declare that what is put in
the Rule about not having more cloaks {tunicas} than one with a hood
and one without a hood; also, about not wearing sandals, about not
riding except in a case of necessity; also, that the Brothers should
wear cheap clothes; also, that they are bound to fast from the feast
of All Saints to the Birthday of the Lord, and on Fridays; also, that
clerics should say the divine office according to the {ordo} rite of
the holy Roman Church; also that ministers and custodians should take
particular care for the necessities of the sick and for the clothing
of the Brothers; also, that if some Brother falls into infirmity the
other Brothers should serve him; also, that the Brothers should not
preach in the bishopric of any bishop where that has been forbidden
to them by him; also, that no one should dare at all to preach to the
people unless he has been for this purpose examined, approved and
appointed by the General Minister, or by others to whom that belongs
according to the aforesaid declaration; also, that the Brothers who
know that they cannot observe the foregoing Rule specifically should
and can have recourse to their Ministers; also, everything put in the
Rule relating to the form of the habit both of novices and also of
the professed, and also everything relating to the mode of reception
and profession, unless, as the Rule says, it seems, in relation to
the habit of novices, best otherwise according to God to those
involved in reception: these, I say, are all to be observed by the
Brothers as obligatory. Also, the Order has commonly believed, holds,
and has held from antiquity, that wherever the words "are
bound" are put in the Rule, they have the force of precept, and
should be observed as such by the Brothers.
Moreover, because the aforesaid confessor of Christ,
presenting to the Ministers and the brothers the manner of acting and
of serving concerning those to be received into the order, said in
the Rule that the Brothers and their Ministers should take care not
to be solicitous of their [those to be received] temporal things, so
that they [those to be recieved?] should freely do with them whatever
has been inspired in them by the Lord, that nevertheless, those
Ministers should have permission to send them [those newly received?]
to some who fear God, if advice is needed, by whose advice they
should distribute their goods to the poor: many brothers have
doubted, and do doubt, whether it is permitted to them to accept
anything of the goods of entrants, if it be given, and whether they
can without fault lead them to give to persons and to convents, also
whether the Ministers themselves or the Brothers should give advice
for the management of the distribution of such things, when it is
possible to find others than from among themselves suitable for
giving advice to whom those about to enter could be sent. We,
however, considering attentively that by those words saint Francis
intended that professors of his Rule, whom he had established in the
greatest poverty, be especially and totally removed from the love of
the temporal things of those entrants, so that, so far as it concerns
the Brothers themselves, reception to the order should be clearly
holy and most pure, and so that in no way should they seem to have in
view their temporal goods, but only their submission to divine
service: we say that for the future both Ministers and the other
Brothers should abstain from the said inducements to giving to
themselves, and from persuasions, and also from the giving of advice
concerning distribution, since {per hoc} through this, they should be
sent to some of a different status who fear God, not to Brothers, so
that they should truly appear to all to be devoted supporters,
zealous and perfect, of so wholesome a paternal regulation. Since,
however, the Rule itself wishes entrants to be free to do with their
things what the Lord will inspire, it does not seem that it is not
licit for them to accept, their needs and the requirements of the
declaration just mentioned having been considered, if the entrant
wishes freely to give something from his goods, as to the other poor,
by way of alms. However it is fitting for the Brothers to take care
in accepting such offerings lest by the noteworthy quantity of things
accepted an improper purpose {sinister oculus} can be presumed
against them
Furthermore, since it is said in the Rule that those
who have already promised obedience should have one tunic with a
hood, and another without a hood, if they want to have them; also,
that all the brothers should wear cheap clothes,and we have declared
the above mentioned words to be equivalent to precepts: wishing these
things to be determined more fully, we say, concerning the number of
tunics, that it is not licit to use more, except in necessity; this
can be inferred from the Rule, according to the way our above
mentioned predecessor explained this passage {passum} more fully. We
say that cheapness of clothes, both of habits and of under garments,
should be understood to be that which should rightly be regarded as
cheap according to the custom or condition of the country, in respect
of colour of cloth and price. For in such matters one determinate
mode cannot be assigned in respect of all regions. We have thought
that judgment of such cheapness should be entrusted to Ministers and
custodians or guardians, burdening their consciences upon this --
provided, however, that they preserve cheapnessin clothing. In the
same way we leave to the judgment of these ministers, custodians and
guardians, for what necessity these Brothers can wear sandals.
Next, since with the two times in the Rule in which
they are bound to fast, namely from the feast of All Saints to the
Birthday of the Lord, noted it is inserted in the same Rule: "But
at other times they are not bound, except to fast on the sixth day
of the week", and from this some have wanted to say that the
Brothers of the said Order are not bound, except out of fittingness,
to any other feasts but those: we declare that it should be
understood that they are not bound to fast at other times, except in
fasts appointed by the Church. For it is not likely that either the
founder of the Rule, or even its confirmer, intended to absolve them
from keeping those other fasts to which all other Christians are
obliged by the common law of the Church.
Besides, since the said saint, wishing his Brothers
above all to be totally strangers to coins or money, firmly gave
precept to all the Brothers that they should in no way accept coins
or money, themselves or through an intermediary person, and that same
predecessor of ours, explaining that article, laid down cases and
modes so that, if they are observed by the Brothers, they cannot or
should not be described as receivers of money themselves or through
others contrary to the Rule or to the purity of their Order: we say
that the Brothers are bound to take care above all that they do not,
for other reasons and under other modes than the declaration of our
said predecessor posits, have recourse to givers of money or deputed
messengers, lest -- if it is attempted by them otherwise -- they can
deservedly be called transgressors of the precept and of the Rule.
For where something is prohibited to someone in general terms what is
expressly not conceded is understood to be denied. Wherefore all the
management {quaestus} of money and the reception of offerings of
money, in the church or elsewhere, pillars or posts {cippi vel
trunci} arranged for money of offerings or donations to be placed in
them, and also whatever other recourse to money, or to those who have
money, not conceded by the declaration aforesaid: these all, I say,
are simply forbidden them. Since, also, recourse to spiritual
[speciales: substitute spirituales; why not speciales: particular?]
friends is expressly granted in only two cases according to the Rule,
namely, for the needs of the sick and for clothing the Brothers, and
that piously and reasonably, our oft-mentioned predecessor, having
reflected on the necessity of life, decided that it should be
extended to other needs of the Brothers that occur at the time when
alms cease, or also when necessities attack {ingruentes} them: let
the aforesaid Brothers {attendant} take note that it is not permitted
to them for any other reasons besides the aforesaid or the like, on
the road or elsewhere, to have recourse to such friends, whether they
are the givers of money or deputed by them, whether messengers or
depositaries, or whether they are called by any other name whatever,
even if the modes concerning money conceded by the same declaration
are observed completely. Finally, since the same confessor most of
all desired the professors of his Rule to be totally withdrawn from
the affection for and desire of earthly things, and especially to be
totally unacquainted with money and its use, as is proved by the
prohibition often repeated in the Rule against receiving money, it is
necessary for the Brothers to take watchful care that, when they must
have recourse for the above reasons and the modes to those who have
the money set aside for their necessities, they should in all
respects conduct themselves toward those holding the money whoever
they are, principals or messengers, in such a way that they show to
everyone that they have absolutely nothing to do with the said money
(as they do not have). Whereupon to command that money should be
spent and how, to demand an account of expenses, to seek it back
{repetere} in any way or to deposit it, or cause it to be deposited,
to carry a box of money, or its key -- let the Brothers know that
these acts, and the like, are illicit to them. For to do the
aforesaid belongs only to the lords who gave, and to those whom they
deputed to do it.
{XR32.246-56, 123.461}Therefore, since the holy man,
expressing in the Rule the manner of the poverty aforesaid said in
the same: "Let the Brothers appropriate nothing to themselves,
neither house {domum} nor place {locum} nor any thing, but like
pilgrims and strangers in this world serving the Lord in poverty and
humility, let them go confidently for alms", and thus it was
declared by some of our predecessors as Roman pontiffs that this
deprivation of property {expropriationem} should be understood both
individually and also in common, for which reason also they have
accepted for themselves and the Roman Church the property and
lordship of all things granted, offered and donated to the Brothers
(which, and the use of which -- namely, of fact -, it is licit for
the Order or the Brothers themselves to have), only simple use of
fact in those things being left to the Brothers themselves: the
things which were being said to be done in the Order and seemed to
conflict with the aforesaid vow and with the purity of the order were
referred to our examination, namely, so that we might follow up those
among them that we believe need a remedy: that they do not merely
tolerate, but seek, that they be made heirs; also, that they
sometimes receive annual revenues in such notable quantity that the
Convents having them live wholly from them; also, that when their
cases even concerning temporal things are being pursued {agitantur}
in the courts, they are present with the advocates and procurators
and personally represent themselves there to instigate the same;
also, that they accept and carry out the execution of last wills, and
sometimes intervene concerning arrangements or restitutions to be
made of usury or things wrongly taken; also, that in some places they
have not only excessive gardens, but also great vineyards, from which
they gather for sale much of both olives and of wine; also, that at
times of harvest or vintage, so copiously are grain and wine
collected by the Brothers, by begging or buying from elsewhere, and
stored in cellars and granaries, that they can spend their lives for
the rest of the year without begging for them; also, that they make
or take care to have made churches or other buildings notably
excessive in quantity, curiosity of shape and form and in
sumptuousness, so that they seem to be the habitations not of paupers
but of magnates. Also in many places they have so many and such
remarkably precious church furnishings {paramenta} that they exceed
in these respects the great cathedral churches. Moreover, they accept
indiscriminately horses and arms offered to them at funerals.
However, the community of the Brothers, and especially the rulers of
the same Order, asserted that the aforesaid, or many of them, did not
happen in the Order, also that, if some are found guilty in such
matters they are strictly punished, and that from antiquity very
strict statutes have often been made in the Order against such
things, so that they may not happen. Desiring, therefore, to provide
for the conscience of these Brothers, and to remove from their hearts
(as much as possible) all doubts, we answer the aforesaid in the way
that follows. For since it pertains to the truth of life that what is
done outwardly represents the interior disposition and habit of the
mind: the Brothers, who by so great a renunciation of property have
withdrawn themselves from temporal things, must necessarily abstain
from everything that would be or could seem contrary to the said
renunciation of property. Because, therefore, in successions there
passes in its time to the heirs not only the use of the thing but
also lordship - but the aforementioned Brothers cannot acquire
anything for themselves individually, or for their Order even in
common - we say in explanation that considering the purity of their
vow, they are not at all capable of such successions, which even of
their nature extend indifferently to money, and also to other things,
movable and immovable. And it is not licit to them to cause the value
of such inheritances, or of so great a part of them that it could be
presumed that this was done in fraud, to be left to them under the
mode or form of a legacy, or to accept things thus left: rather we
simply forbid those things to be done thus by them. And since annual
revenues are by the law counted as immovables, and to obtain such
revenue is inconsistent with poverty and mendicancy: there is no
doubt that it is not licit for the aforesaid Brothers, considering
their condition, to receive or have any revenues whatever, just as
[it is not licit for them to have] possessions or even their use
(since they are not found to have been granted to them). Further,
since perfect men must particularly avoid not only what is known to
be evil, but also everything that has the appearance of evil - from
such presences in court, however, and instigations when the action
concerns things to be converted to their advantage, the Brothers
present are believed with likelihood, from what appears outwardly
(from which men outside have to judge) to seek something as their own
in these things - in no way should professors of such a vow and Rule
associate with such courts and litigious acts, so that they both have
testimony from those who are outside, and satisfy the purity of their
vow, and thereby scandal of neighbours is avoided. Also, indeed,
since the Brothers of the said Order are {penitus alieni} complete
strangers not only to the reception, ownership and lordship or use of
money itself, but also to any handling of it whatever, and to it,
just as our oft mentioned predecessor plainly said in explanation of
such a Rule; and since the professors of the said order cannot
contend in court for any temporal thing: it is not licit or suitable
for the aforesaid Brothers - nay rather, considering the purity of
their status they should know that it is forbidden to them - to
expose themselves to such executions and managements, since most
often these things cannot be expedited without litigation and
handling or administration of money. Nevertheless to be given [dari:
substitute dare; why not dari? Isn't it the pope giving them advice?]
advice in the carrying out of these things does not conflict with
their status, since no jurisdiction, action in court, or management
concerning temporal goods is thereby attributed to them.
But although it is not only licit, but also very
suitable to reason, that the brothers who are sedulously occupied in
spiritual labours of prayer and study, have gardens and open spaces
suitable for their recollection or recreation, and for bodily
withdrawing themselves sometimes after such labours, and also for
having necessary garden produce for themselves: yet, to have some
gardens to cultivate and sell vegetables or other garden produce for
a price, and also vineyards, conflicts with their Rule and with the
purity of the Order. According to what the said predecessor declared
and also ordained, that if such things for the uses just stated were
left as a legacy to the Brothers, as for example a field or vineyard
for cultivating and the like, the Brothers should in every way
abstain from accepting such things, since even to have the foregoing
in order that the price of their produce should be had in their
seasons, approaches the nature and form {proventuum} of income.
Again, since the aforesaid saint showed both in the examples of his
life and in the words of the Rule that he wished his Brothers and
sons, relying on divine providence, to cast their thoughts upon God,
who feeds the birds of the air who neither gather into barns nor sow
nor reap, it is not likely that he wished them to have granaries or
cellars, when they should hope to be able to pass their life in daily
begging. And therefore they should not from slight fear become slack
{relaxare} and make such gatherings and preservings, but only at that
time when it would be very credible from what is already experienced
that they could not otherwise find the necessaries of life. We have
decided that this should be left to the judgment of the ministers and
custodians together and separately in their administrations and
custodies, with the advice and assent of the guardian and two
discreet priests from the convent of the place who have long been
members in the order of Brothers, burdening their consciences on this
matter especially. Hence it is also that, since the holy man wished
to found his Brothers in the highest poverty and humility, in respect
of the desire and equally of the effect, as almost the whole Rule
proclaims, it befits them that from now on they should in no way
cause to be made, or permit to be made, churches or any other
buildings at all that should be regarded as excessive in number and
size, considering the number of Brothers living in them. We wish,
therefore, that from now on every where in their order they should be
content with modest and humble buildings, lest what is open to the
eyes proclaim to outsiders the opposite of this great poverty that
was promised. Also, although church {paramenta} furniture and vessels
are dedicated to the honour of the divine name, on account of which
God himself did all things, nevertheless, he who is the knower of
hidden things looks mainly to the mind of those ministering to him,
not to their hand,nor does he wish himself to be served through those
things [illas: substitute illa] that are not in harmony with the
condition and state of those who serve him; accordingly vessels and
church furniture that are fitting, and in number and size competently
sufficient, should suffice them. But superfluity, or too much
preciousness, or any anxiety whatever in these things or in any
others at all, cannot befit their profession or state. For since
these smack of the amassing of treasure or of plenty, in respect of
human judgment they manifestly derogate from so great a poverty.
Therefore we will and command the foregoing to be observed by the
Brothers. Concerning offerings of horses and arms we decree that that
should be observed in all respects and through all {in omnibus et per
omnia} that is known to have been defined by the aforesaid declaring
in respect of money offered as alms.
From the foregoing there has grown among the Brothers
a question of no little scrupulosity, namely, whether by the
profession of their Rule they are obliged to a restricted or thin or
poor use of things. Some among them believe and say that, just as in
respect of lordship of things they have from their vow a most strict
abdication, so in respect of use the greatest restriction and
poorness is imposed upon them. Others on the contrary assert that
they are not obliged by their profession to any poor use not
expressed in the Rule, though they are bound to a moderate use of
temperance, just as, and fittingly, more than, the rest of
Christians. Wishing therefore to provide for the quiet of the
consciences of the aforesaid Brothers, and to put an end to these
disagreements, we say, making a declaration, that by the profession
of their Rule the Brothers Minor are particularly obliged to the
restricted or poor uses that are contained in their Rule, and to the
mode of obligation under which the Rule contains or posits the said uses.
But to say, as some are said to assert, that it is
heretical to hold that poor use is included or not included under the
vow of evangelical poverty, we judge presumptuous and rash.
Finally, because from the fact that, when it
determines by whom and where the elections of a Minister General
should be done, the said Rule makes absolutely no mention of the
election or appointment of Provincial Ministers, a doubt could arise
among the Brothers upon this, we, wishing them to be able to to
proceed in all their {factis} acts clearly and securely, declare,
enact also and ordain in this constitution, to be valid {in perpetuum
valitura} in perpetuity, that when provision concerning a Minister is
to be made for some province, the election of that Minister remains
with the provincial chapter; that the chapter is bound to make this
election on the day after it meets; and that the confirmation of this
election pertains to the Minister General. And if indeed they proceed
to this election by way of scrutiny [note], and, with the votes
divided in different directions, several elections happen to be
{celebrari} announced in discord, let that election which has been
announced by the numerically larger part of the chapter (making no
comparison or consideration of zeal or merit), notwithstanding any
exception or contradiction whatever of the other part, be confirmed,
or even disallowed by the said General Minister with the advice of
discrete members of the order (a diligent examination having first
been carried out officially, as pertains to him), as has seemed to
them advantageous according to God. And if it is disallowed, let such
election revert to the provincial chapter.
Besides {ceterum}, if the chapter mentioned omits to
elect the Minister on the aforesaid day, from that time provision of
the provincial minister freely devolves to the General Minister.
However, if it were to seem advantageous sometimes to the aforesaid
General Minister and General Chapter for a certain, manifest and
reasonable cause, in the overseas provinces of Ireland, or Greece, or
Rome, in which hitherto another mode of providing is said to have
been preserved for a certain and reasonable cause, for the provincial
minister to be appointed {praefici} by the General Minister, with the
advice of virtuous members of the Order, rather than by the election
of the aforesaid chapter in the provinces of Ireland and in the
overseas provinces inviolably, and in Rome or Greece when the
minister of the said province dies or is discharged {absolveretur} on
this side of the sea, let that be observed instead, without trickery,
partiality or fraud (upon which we burden their con sciences) which
the said minister, with the advice of the said virtuous members,
shall have decided should be ordained.
But in the deposition of the said provincial ministers
we wish to be observed what has hitherto been observed by this order
on the matter.
However, if it were to happen that they lack a
Minister General, let the vicar of the Order do upon this what the
same Minister would have to have done, until provision has been made
for a General Minister. Moreover, if perchance anything happens to be
attempted otherwise concerning such provincial minister, let that be
ipso facto invalid and empty. Let it therefore be licit to no
man at all to weaken this page of our declarations, sayings,
commission, response, prohibition, ordinance, mandate, constitutions,
judgments and wills, or by rash deed of daring to go against it. If
anyone presumes to attempt this, however, let him know that he will
incur the indignation of almighty God and of blessed Peter and Paul,
his apostles.
Return to Ockham,
Scotus, Buridan |