Mendicant Friars

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Mendicant Friars are members of thosereligious orders which, originally, byvow of poverty renounced all proprietorship not only individually but also (and in this differing from themonks) in common, relying for support on their own work and on the charity of thefaithful. Hence the name of beggingfriars.

There remain from theMiddle Ages four great mendicant orders, recognized as such by theSecond Council of Lyons, 1274, Sess. 23 (Mansi, XXIV, 96) — theOrder of Preachers, theFriars Minor, theCarmelites, and theHermits of St. Augustine. Successively other congregations obtained the privilege of the mendicants. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XXV, cap. iii) granted all the mendicant orders, except theFriars Minor and theCapuchins, the liberty of corporate possession (seeFRIAR). The object of the present article is to outline (I) the origin and characteristics of the mendicants; (II) the opposition which they encountered.

Origin

Historical reasons for the origin of the mendicants are obvious. Since the struggle regarding investitures a certain animosity againstchurch property had remained.Arnold of Brescia preached thatmonks andclerics who possessedproperty could not a be saved. A little later John Valdes founded the "Poor Men ofLyons", soon followed by similarsects. The movement thus started inFrance andItaly had spread among the poorer classes at the beginning of the thirteenth century and threatened to become dangerous to theChurch. By uniting utter poverty to entire subjection toward, St. Francis became withSt. Dominic the bulwark oforthodoxy against the newheretics, and the two orders ofFriars Minor and Preachersproved themselves a great help both to the inner and to the external life of theChurch. Nor was absolute poverty the only characteristic of the new orders. They did not confine themselves to the sanctification of their own members; their maxim wasnon sibi soli vivere sed et aliis proficere (not to live for themselves only, but to serve others). At once contemplative and active, to the complete renunciation of all things they joined the exercise of the apostolic ministry, devoting themselves to the evangelization of the masses, and thus introducing another element into monastic life. Anecessary consequence of their close contact with the people, theconvents of the mendicants, unlike those of theBenedictines,Cistercians and of themonks generally, were situated in the towns, in which, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, communal life was rapidly developing. Now as Brewer (Monumenta Franciscana I, p. xvii) observes, and his words may be applied to all the mendicants, "it was to this class of the population, in first instance, that the attention of theFranciscan was directed; in these wretched localities (suburbs of the towns) hisconvent and order were seated. A glance at the more important will show the general correctness of this statement. InLondon,York, Warwick,Oxford,Bristol, Lynn and elsewhere, theirconvents stood in suburbs and abutted on the city walls". The work of the mendicants in thepulpit, in the confessional, in the service of the sick and the socially weak, in the foreign missions, had no parallel in theMiddle Ages.

This same apostolical activity had two consequences, which form further characteristics of the mendicant friars, a new organization of claustral life and, the adoption of a special means of providing subsistence. The mendicants, unlike themonks, were not bound by avotum stabilatis (vow of permanency) to oneconvent but enjoyed considerable liberty. Not only might they be called upon to exercise their ministry within the limits of a province, but, with permission of the general, they could be sent all over the world. The form of government itself was rather democratic, as for the most part the superiors were not elected for life and were subject to the General Chapter. From their apostolical ministry the mendicants derived the right of support from allChristian people:dignus est operarius mercede sua. (The labourer is worthy of his hire.) It was only just that having left everything in the world in obedience toChrist's counsel (Matthew 19:21;16:24;Luke 9:1-6) in order to devote themselves to the well-being of the people, they should look to the people for their support. And in fact thosealms were regarded as the due of their apostolic work. When later the Apostolici tried to live in the same way as the mendicants, without doing their work,Salimbene rebuked them indignantly: "They wish to live", he writes, "on the charity of theChristian people, although they do nothing for it, they hear no confessions, they do not preach, nor do they give edification, as do theFriars Minor and the Preachers" (Mon. Ger. Hist. Script. XXXII, 255-57, 259, 264). But provision for the necessities of life was not left to chance. Eachconvent had its limit or district (limes, terminus), in which brothers, generally two and two, made regular visits to solicitalms. This institution still exists inCatholic countries, as inItaly,Spain and some parts ofGermany and in the Tyrol, while in others, evenCatholic countries, it is forbidden by law, as in some parts ofAustria-Hungary.

Opposition

This new form of conventual life was not introduced without strong opposition. With what feelings the older orders occasionally regarded the rapid spread of the mendicants may be gathered from the it Chronica majora, ad an. 1243", ed. Luard, IV London., 1877, 279, 80; "ad. an. 1246", ibid. 1511-17. Still it is well known that St. Francis was indebted to theBenedictines for the "Portiuncula", the first church of his order. The chief opposition came from elsewhere; from theuniversities and from thebishops andsecular clergy. The mendicants did not confine themselves to the sacred ministry, but had almost from the beginning learned members who claimed equality with otherdoctors at theuniversities. TheDominicans were the firstreligious order to introduce the higher studies as a special point in theirstatutes and if they probably owe their mendicancy to the influence of St. Francis over St. Dominic, theFriars Minor are probably indebted for their higher studies to the influence or at least to the example of the Preachers. On the other hand theChurch appreciated the work of the new orders and exempted them from thejurisdiction of thebishops, granting them extensive faculties for preaching and hearing, confessions, together with the right of burial in their own churches,rights reserved hitherto to thesecular clergy. It should be stated here that this opposition, was not inspired merely byenvy or other mean motives, but rather from economical reasons. For theparishpriests depended in great part for their income on the offerings of thefaithful, which threatened to diminish through the great popularity enjoyed by the mendicants. On the whole it might be said that theChurch protected the regulars againstunjust attacks, while on the other hand she found means to redress abuses, tending to endanger the legitimate interests of thesecular clergy. The opposition to the mendicants was particularly strong at theUniversity of Paris, and inFrance generally, less violent at theUniversity of Oxford and inEngland. Isolated cases are to be found also in other countries. As early as 1231-32Gregory IX had to protect the mendicants against the pretensions, of someprelates, who wanted thefriars to be subject to theirjurisdiction like the ordinary faithful. See different forms of theBull "Nimis iniqua" (Bull. Franc. I, 74-77) repeated byInnocent IV, 1245 (op. cit. 368). Although thisBull speaks in a general way and is addressed to different countries the abuses enumerated by it were probably of local character.

The first great storm broke out atParis, where theDominicans had opened theirschools (1229-30) and erected two chairs oftheology; theFriars Minor followed them (1231). At first (1252) the opposition was directed against theDominicans, theuniversity wishing to grant them only one professorship [Denifle,"Chartularium" (see. below) I, 26]. Theuniversity sought allies and so drew thebishops andsecular clergy into the struggle (Chartularium I, 252), with the result thatInnocent IV, at first favourable to the mendicants (Chartularium 1, 247), took. away their privileges with regard to preaching, confession, and burialrights in theBull "Etsi animonim" 21 Nov., 1254 (Chartularium 1, 1267). This sudden change of attitude towards the mendicants inInnocent IV has not yet been sufficiently explained. The first step ofAlexander IV was to suspend the dispositions of his predecessor,Bull "Nee insolitium", 22 Dec., 1254 (Chartularium I, 1276), in which he promised new dispositions and forbade meanwhile to act against the mendicants. In these critical circumstances it was doubly unfortunate that Gerard di Borgo S. Donnino should publish his book "Introductorius in Evangelium Esternum" (1254), which besides many other Joachimiteerrors, attributed to the mendicants a special vocation, to take the place of thesecular clergy in the near future (1260). The answer was not long delayed.William of St. Amour, the leader of the opposition against the mendicants, publicly attacked the treatise in his sermon "Qui amat (ed. Brown, "Fasciculus rerum expetendarum" . . London, 1690, II, 51; Guil. a S. Amore, "Opera omnia," Constance 1632, 491). It has been made evident of late that the professors extracted from Gerard's treatise and from Joachim's "Concordia" the thirty-one propositions, partly falsifying them (Matt. Parisiensis first ed., London, 1882, 335-39; "Chartularium 1; 1, 272), and denouncing them with the book toInnocent IV. William went farther and wrote his famous treatise against the mendicants, "De periculis novissimorum temporum" ("Opera om.", op. cit., 17-72; Brown, op cit 11, 18-41, here under afalse title). The author starts from2 Timothy 3 sqq., and sees the fulfillment of those words in the rise of the mendicant friars, who however are not specified, though everybodyknew the significance. The whole list of vices enumerated by the apostle is applied to the mendicants, whom William blames on all the points which formed their characteristic note. The danger, he goes on, is at our doors, and it is theduty of thebishops to avert it. In order that those impostors and pseudo-preachers, may be the more easily detected, William draws up forty-one signs, by which they are to be recognized. This treatise made an enormous impression.

Alexander IV, however, in theBull "Quasi lignum vitae", 14 April 1255 ("'Bull. Franc." II; "Bull. Traed." I, 276; "Chartularium" I, 279), settled the questions at issue between theuniversity and the mendicants, independently of the case of Gerard di Borgo S. Donnino. Thepope annulled thestatutes of theuniversity against the mendicants, who were authorized to continue their publicschools, even with the two chairs of theDominicans, as a part of theuniversity. On the other hand, the Master General of theDominicans wrote fromMilan, May, 1255, to his brethren to be careful and not to provoke thesecular clergy against the order ("Chartularium" I, 289; Reichert, "Monumenta Ord. Frat. Praedicatorum", V, Rome, 1900, 21). At the same time the common interests of the Preachers andFriars Minor inspired the beautiful letter ofJohn of Parma andHumbert of Romans,Milan, May, 1255 (Reichert, op. cit., V, 25;Wadding, "Annals Ord. Min.", III, 380). The professors and students ofParis nevertheless did not accept theBull "Quasi lignum vitae": they wrote 2 Oct., 1255 a sharp protest against it (Chartularium I, 292).Alexander IV, 23 Oct., 1255, condemned the "Introductorius in Evangelium aeternum" (Denifle, "Archiv. f. Litt. u Knichengesch.", I, 87 sqq.). Moreover 5 Out. 1256, he condemned the treatise "De Periculis novissimorum temporum" in theBull "Romanus Pontifex" (Chartarium I, 1531). Reluctantly theuniversity submitted to the orders of thepope. William alone resisted and having been banished fromParis andFrance, he wrote another attack against mendicants, "Liber de antichristo et eiusdem miristris" (ed. under afalse name by Martene-Durand, "Vet. Scriptor. amplissima collectio", IX, Paris, 1733, 1271). This redoubtable attack against the mendicants, conducted by the most famousuniversity, was met by the ablest writers from among thefriars.St. Thomas Aquinas wrote "Contra impugnantes Dei cultum";St. Bonaventure, "Quiestio disputata de paupertate" (Opera omnia, ed. Quaraccehi, V, 125), "Apologia paupernum" a (VII, 233), "De tribus quaestionibus" (VIII, 331). Directly against William's "De periculis" anotherFranciscan, Bertrand ofBayonne, or perhaps Thomas of York, wrote the treatise, "Manus contra omnipotentem" (Chartularium I, 415). John of Peckham, laterArchbishop ofCanterbury, took part in the controversy with his "De perfectione evangelica", partly ed. by Little in to Fratris Johannis Pecham. . . . tractatus tres do paupertate" (British Society ofFranciscan Studies, II, Aberl 1910). The seculars continued the fight, even with popular compositions, of which the best known is the "Roman de la Rose". At the second Council of Lyons new attempts were made against the mendicants, partly because of the rise of other mendicant bodies, some of which were of objectionable form, as the "Apostolici" and the "Friars of the Sack" (Saccati) (seeSalimbene, "Mon. Germ. Hist. Script.", XXXII, 245 sqq) All mendicants were abolished, but the four great orders were excepted on account of the manifest good they wrought.Martin IV, "Ad fructus uberes", 13 Dec., 1281, and 10 Jan., 1282 (Bull. Franc., 111, 480) extended the privilege of the mendicants with regard to preaching and hearingconfessions, a measure which caused much opposition among thebishops andclergy, especially inFrance. Only in late years have we come toknow of the existence of a great transaction on this subject, atParis 1290, where Cardinal Gaetano, later onBoniface VIII, skillfully defended the regulars (See Bibliography).Boniface VIII revised the legislation regarding the privileges of the mendicants in favour of theclergy. HisBull "Super Cathedram", 18 Feb. 1300 (c. 2 in "Clem." III, 7; "Extravag. Com." cap. 2, III, 6; "Bull Franc.", IV, 498) is in substance even now in force.

The controversies between the mendicants and thesecular priests inEngland andIreland took an acrimonious form in the fourteenth century. We have a peculiarly interesting instance of this in the case of Richard Fitzralph,Archbishop ofArmagh, who preached seven or eight times inLondon against the mendicants and in nine propositions attacked their poverty and their privileges interfering withparochialrights. Denounced at thepapal court ofAvignon, he was cited byInnocent VI and defended himself in a treatise, which he read in a public consistory, 8 Nov., 1357, printed under the title "Defensorium Curatorum" in Goldast, "Monarchia S. Romani Imperii. . .", II, Frankfort, 1614, 1391-1410 and in Brown, "Fasciculus rerum", II, 466-487., There is a compendium of the nine propositions in Old English in Howlett, "Monumenta Franciscana" II, 276-77. This curious document might be called a negative exposition of the rule of theFriars Minor. An EnglishFranciscan, Richard Conway, defended thefriars against Fitzralph; his treatise is edited by Goldast, op. cit., 11, 1410-44.Innocent VI gave aBull, 1 Oct., 1358, in which he stated that a commission had been named to examine the differences between theArchbishop ofArmagh and the mendicants and forbade meanwhile theprelates ofEngland to hinder the four mendicant orders from exercising theirrights (Bull. Franc., VI, 316). In the following year aBull prescribing the observance of theDecretal "Super Cathedram" ofBoniface VIII was directed to differentbishops of the continent and to the Arch.bishop of York, 26 Nov., 1359 (Bull. Franc., VI, 322). Towards the end of the fourteenth century the mendicants inEngland were attacked more fiercely and on a broader scale by the Wicliffites.Wiclif himself at first, was not on bad terms with thefriars; his enmity was confined to the last few years of his life. WhileWiclif had only repeated the worn-out arguments against the mendicants, his disciples went much farther and accused them of the lowest vices. Nor did they confine theircalumnies to learned treatises, but embodied them in popular poems and songs, mostly English, of which we have many examples in the two volumes published by Wright (see bibliography). The chief place of controversy was Oxford, where thefriars were accused even of sedition. On 18 Feb., 1382, the heads of the four mendicant orders wrote a joint letter to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, protesting against thecalumnies of the Wicliffites and stating that their chief enemy was Nicholas Hereford, Professor ofHoly Scripture, who in a sermon announced that no religious should be admitted to any degree at Oxford. This letter is inserted inThomas Netter's "Fasciduli Zizaniorum, magistri Job. Wyclif" (ed. Waddington, Rer. Brit. Script., London, 1858, 292-95). There are in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries many other instances of hostility with which thefriars, especially theMinorites, were regarded by theUniversity of Oxford. Though the Black Death and the Great Schism hadevil effects on their general discipline, the mendicants, thanks to the rise of numerous branches of stricter observance, on the whole flourished until theReformation. Notwithstanding the heavy losses sustained during that period, the mendicants have nevertheless continued to take their part, and that a considerable one, in the life of theChurch down to the present day.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT