About the debate which took place in the place of the Duke of Nocera.

312 The Duke protests about the way in which the Brief was served in him 313 He proposes a cross-examining debate and it is accepted 314 Padre Ludovico begins the discussion with his reasons for the separation 315 The first reason: ownership 316 The second reason: preciousness in dress 317 The third reason: recourse to money 318 Fourth reason: the impossibility of observing the Rule spiritually 319 The Capuchin Reform has not been the first and is quite licit 320 Historical overview of the various Franciscan Reforms

(312) When those two ambassadors arrived at the palace of the Duke they asked an audience to be able speak with His Excellency and they were introduced. As soon as they entered the presence of his Lordship, with great presumption they said His Excellency should not support such apostates and excommunicates. They added that he should these Friars over to them according to the will of His Beatitude as the Brief shows. Otherwise they wanted to pronounce excommunicated all those who accommodated them, gave them alms, those who conversed with them and gave them any help or support. Among his three sons the Duke had a young son called Lord Don Tiberius who, because he was the youngest child, was very much loved by his father. At this time he was the bishop of Potenza and being like his father, and so loved our Congregation very much. After the two aforementioned messengers had said these words arrogantly to His Excellency, he answered them agitatedly. He struck them with an angry and fiery glare in such a way that they lost their boldness. He said, “I swear on the life of Don Tiberius, my son, that anyone who would have the audacity to want to excommunicate or even pronounce as excommunicated without giving time for recourse to His Holiness, he will just have time to receive Holy Communion. The others will learn what it is to serve notice of excommunication in my State with such arrogance and without observing the due ceremonies that His Holiness wishes.”

Taking the Brief he kissed it and put it on his head. Then he read it with great reverence. Then turning to those Friars he said, “It is true that when His Holiness commands, like a good Christian, I am ready for every hint of precept of His Holiness. But it does not prohibit me recourse to His Holiness, and if you have badly informed him on the part of the opposing view, recourse cannot be denied. Therefore I accept all that His Holiness commands but I request time to be able to have recourse and that I may give my reasons. However, with presumptuous words you have dared to serve me such an excommunication without having any respect for me. You should blush with shame because while you don’t want to do the right thing you try to block those who want to do good and observe their Rule and profession, which is the intention and will of Father Saint Francis.”

(313) Then he offered to have Padre Ludovico and Father George and the others brought into their presence. Then if necessary they might give their reasons on their part. He affirmed that if the two Friars made convincing allegations in their defence and by which the Capuchin Friars remained convicted he would do all within his power to have them return and remove that newly assumed habit. In this way their undertaking would go no further. But if, on the other hand, it happened that these Capuchin Fathers good reasons on their part, their opponents will have to leave in peace and promise to give no further trouble to those poor fellows. Nor should they give even the slightest indication with either words or actions that they want to present or serve any excommunication or Brief.

The two Friar adversaries who were already struck with fear agreed to everything that the Duke proposed believing they had already won for they thought that the Capuchin Friars would not have the kind of reasons which in such an argument would be superior. And so, as I said above, the Duke called Padre Ludovico and the other Capuchins. Of them all only three came, that is, Padre Ludovico , Father George and Father John of Terranuova.

When they arrived before His Excellency the two messengers, giving no thought to modesty brazenly began to reprimand those poor fellows, rebuking them for having left without any reason. They humbly replied however that they did it compelled by necessity in order to observe the purity of their Rule, which they could not do while among them and that they would have found this to have been necessary every time.

Then the Duke said, “No more vane words.” He had the doors of the room locked and order that no one be admitted while he was with those Fathers. He had chairs brought for everyone and wanted the discussion to take place in his presence. This was offered to the Capuchin, and they likewise agreed.

(314) Therefore they all sat down with the Lord Duke between them. Padre Ludovico began by saying, “I am sorry, my Reverend Fathers, that at least for our honour and that of others it is necessary for me that I must put my hand to exposing the wounds beneath our clothing which we should keep concealed and well hidden. Nonetheless I am forced by your exorbitant anger and for our justification to show that our leaving you has not been without the most urgent cause. Rather we have been obliged and more than forced by conscience to do it. So I declare before God and men that I am not committing any fault in saying the things I am ready to make known. Nor do I have to give account to the just tribunal of God. Even though we are talking on such a subject before the Lord Duke here present, because he is the most loving father of all, we can have complete confidence and be free to say every one of our reasons. Therefore, my Fathers, do you want to be the first to begin to speak, or would you rather us?” They replied that he should begin. “Just as you wish,” answered Brother Padre Ludovico . “I am happy to do so.”

(315) “First of all I will speak about ownership which has made us divided us and because of which because of which we have left. You know how Father Saint Francis commands in Chapter Six of the Rule and gives this precept that the Friars may not appropriate neither house, nor place nor anything. This means, as the Supreme Pontiffs who have clarified the Rule understood, that this ownership is neither in common or in particular. Therefore Clement V declares that it is not permissible for Friars to oblige persons under judgement regarding any temporal thing. The privileges that relax this precept are all against the Rule of Saint Francis. Therefore having chapels, being involved with burials, being careful that places not be taken from us either by communities or particular owners, obliging universities to give so much per year for the food and clothing of the Friars – all these things are against the Rule. Tell me. You cannot deny that this is what is done among you others. Now you experience the consequences yourselves and as you will see, even you will say that we had reason and cause to leave you, because we saw in this the will of Father Saint Francis to continue in this.”

One of those Fathers replied and said that because the multitude of Friars had increased so much and the alms of seculars were so inadequate, they were forced to do this in order to live. It would have been impossible to live to do otherwise and impossibility is not subject to the law.”

Then the Duke said, “My Father, it seems to me that your reply is not relevant.”

Then Padre Ludovico added, “You know, my Fathers, how Saint Paul also says that evil should not be done so that good may come of it. According to you, what goes against the Rule? To provide temporal goods especially in those things which are quite obviously superfluous, or to provide the least possible? How many superfluous things are used, and used lavishly, and for which there is no necessity! If these were left aside, taking only those things necessary for life, simple alms would be enough. I am more certain of this than I am of being here and speaking in the present. Even if the multitude (of Friars) were bigger than the crowds who led Xerses into Greece, the mercy of God who abundantly feeds all living things will never fail to provide alms for his servants day by day, provided that they are observers of the his Rule.”

(316) “Now we come to the second point. Now I am speaking about lowliness in dress. Friars are obliged to observe that precept of the Rule where Father Saint Francis expressly commands in Chapter Two that all the Friars dress in lowly cloths. Therefore those Friars who do not dress in the poor cloth used in the province or country are not observing this commandment, as Pope Clement V declares.

Then one of those Fathers answered. The other one didn’t know what to say because what the Rule says is something quite clear. He said that their clothes were also lowly, even if they were not of the same coarseness and lowliness which the Capuchin Friars wear. In fact that harshness of cloth is necessary for the Order because Saint Francis and his companions did not go around in such lowly and heavy cloth.

Fra Ludovico replied. “My most cordial Fathers and ever beloved brothers in Christ. You also know, because you have read it often, that all the mendicant Orders not only loved poverty in all things, but they held it in special regarding dress, according to the example of Christ Jesus and John the Baptist. In the gospel we read that John’s food and drink were simple and very poor and that he went about dressed in clothes made of camel skin. According to some learned men, such clothing is not the way it is usually depicted, that is, with just the on pelt worn that covered the body from the shoulders down to the knees, front and back and both sides, leaving the arms and the rest of the leg bare. They say however that it was long attire down to the feet, woven and made from animal skins and that it had the same harshness as a coarse, heavy hair shirt. To return to what I was saying. It was not only the leaders of religious Orders who dressed in real lowly cloth, but the Rule expressly tells and commands u that the Friars ought to dress in lowly clothes. Such lowliness should be of such a style that when sackcloth is put on to patch them, as the Rule says our Friars may do, the lowliness of the cloth should be inconformity with the sackcloth in such a way that it doesn’t make the patch obvious. Furthermore, this lowliness, according to the Declaration of Pope Clement V, should be understood as that kind of lowliness that poor use for clothing in the region where the Friars lives. It is certain that the poor do not dress in the kind of cloth that you are wearing and which you baptised as ‘lowly.’ Rather, your clothing is of such lowliness that the rich of the world make their cloths form it. The nobility would still be glad to wear it.

The other of the two replied. He said, “This controversy and disagreement was the same when Brother Alexander of Alexandria was general. When he died there was great uproar and all kinds of unbecoming things. In his Extravagante, Pope John XXII put an end to those arguments. He ordered the Friars to dress in the cloth that the Prelates judged to be lowly. Our Prelates and Superiors judge these to be appropriate and that those who dress in them are not going against the Rule. So it follows that we can wear it with good conscience.”

Fra Ludovico replied, saying, “The intention of the Supreme Pontiff was not and is not to go against the Rule. Therefore, wanting to be certain, he put the burden on the conscience of the Prelates to dress the Friars in the lowly cloth that the Rule requires. He left this matter to the judgement and decision of the Superiors in order to quell the current uproar and the upheaval of a multitude of Friars. He also thought that those Superiors would have a conscience and not have their Friars go against the commandment given us by our Seraphic Father about the matter of dress. If he would have thought otherwise, His holiness would not have been so open handed. Now it obvious that lowliness of cloth has gone to pot. I firmly believe that just as it goes against the will of Saint Francis, it also goes against the mind and will of that Supreme Pontiff.

“As to your saying that our most zealous Father and his companions didn’t ear cloth as harsh and heavy as we wear, I say that this is completely false. I don’t want to say more about this because it is quite clear and more than obvious. Just to convince you only, let their habits and tunics that Saint Francis and his companions were speak. How can you deny this, since there are many of these habits which our early Fathers wore? These show to be of that lowliness and harshness which we wear. Therefore, why accuse our dress, since it conforms to that of our Father just as it does to so many other saints and Fathers also.

“Regarding the step we have taken in this matter of dress, we likewise read that all the zealous reformers of our Order before us have done the same. So when Clement 5 died and his Declaration was despised by the lax, it can be said that they dressed in truly carnal cloth, and no longer used vile cloth but noble cloth. The controversy you spoke about came from this. The pope put his hand to it in order to quieten such an uproar. Because after this liberality, the true zealots of poverty and simplicity, touched in the heart and spurred on by such zeal to observe the Rule, stripped off the strange habits that the community wore. They disposed of them like profane habits and dressed in the coarse cloth the poor wear.”

Here Padre Ludovico fell silent and waited for those Fathers to make some reply. However, they remained silent. So the Lord Duke added, “My Fathers, what these Capuchin Fathers say seems to me to be a clear as noon day. Therefor, if there is nothing said to which you can to make a reply we will continue so that everything that has to be said will be said.”

Then Padre Ludovico turned to Father George and said to him, “My Father, it is right that Your Reverence say his part and show these brothers the right and broad reasons which have urged us to separate from them so that your discourse may help them better understand. If they are not happy with that, at least the Lord Duke will know and understand the reasons which have made us make these changes.”

(317) Father George accepted this task. After first bowing his head in reverence towards the Duke he then turned his gaze and speech to those Fathers. I believe they would have wished to be anywhere but there, and that they hadn’t agreed with the Duke to come to this discussion because they saw that they mask they wore was about to be disclosed. I return to what I was saying. Father George faced those Fathers and said, “It is also very clear, my Fathers, that the fact of recourse to coin and money goes against the Rule. Saint Francis also says in Chapter four of the Rule that they Friars may in no way receive coin or money, either themselves or through an intermediary. When our Seraphic Father gave us this commandment, since it was very important, he said, “I firmly command… etc.” Therefore, since the intention and clear will of Saint Francis is known from this passage, Clement V declares and says that the Rule is not observed in that Friary where they quest money or receive offerings of money indifferently. In order not to go on and on, but to stop here, I say this. You know yourselves know how things go with your receptacles and moneyboxes in the church and the other ways, about which I keep silence. However I do not wish to leave out what I haven’t said since were have come to this point and we are in a place where we can speak candidly. The Lord Duke is here who, as Padre Ludovico has said, is your father and ours. And also because you yourselves, by giving us so many troubles, have urged us to speak in this way.

Since we have to continue to speak somewhat, let us not omit from this discussion about coin and money, a very important part. As I have touched upon, with strong words our blessed Father prohibited us from receiving money. He then grants permission to have recourse to spiritual friends to clothe the Friars and for the infirm. Like something close to his heart he repeats at these words at the end of that chapter: “This is always (permissible) except, as has been said, they may not receive coin or money.” Was it enough to have said it already? Certainly. Therefore why does he repeat it? In order to reveal his mind to the Friars whom he wants to be completely detached and distant from receiving coin and money. He wants them not only to be a long way from receiving them and strangers to dispensing them, but also from wanting them in any manner or form. Hence I am urged to say that recourse to spiritual friends can only be had for the sake of the infirm and to clothe the Friars. About the other needs then I say that these must be very exacting and necessary in such a way that it is not possible to do less so that these needs are similar to the needs of the sick.

“In order to make the point clearer, I add this. Consider the above mentioned words: “This is always (permissible) except the Friars may not receive coin or money” themselves. Nor must they have it received for any reason of their own at all. Nor may they spend it or have others spend it for them. Nor should they keep account of it and ask for it. Nor can they dispose of it or lock it away in boxes. No should they keep the keys of such boxes. They must have nothing to do with money and such things. If it happens that such recourse be necessary, according to the Nicholas III, they may ago the spiritual friend, who is the one to whom they tell their need, and they may ask alms of him. If he wants to give it, then he may be told where he may fulfil this double service. If he wants to carry it out himself, no more need be said. When he doesn’t want to do it himself, he can be asked to give the task to someone he prefers and so through that person met the need of the Friars. In this way he disposes of the money through the hands of someone else. However, if the almsgiver does not want to do this, with his permission, the Friar can present to him someone who can accept the money. If this same almsgiver is not happy with that person, one, two or three other persons, or as many as necessary can be presented to him until he is happy with one of them. Once he has received the alms, that person may only spend it on the need for which the Friars asked it and on nothing else. While that money is not spent, ownership and dominion remain with the patron who gave it to them. If he wants to have it back for any reason, he may take it back. The Friars must not ask more alms than they need. If there is a surplus they are obliged to return the excess to the patron. If there is some other necessity, with his permission, they may have it spent to meet their other need. However, they may not spend the surplus money in anyway whatsoever without mentioning it to the patron and without his permission. If there is the case where the Friars have some other alms offered them by benefactors or other things even if indifferent, they must not and cannot have recourse to spiritual friends while there is some other way. For as Nicholas III declares, they should have recourse when there is no other way but to spend money.

“About alms left or offered to Friars, and I am speaking about money, if there is no need they may not nor must not accept them, nor have them deputed to someone else, unless there is true, certain, present or proximate necessity. Then they may be accepted. According to the concession of Martin V, who ever offers the alms or leaves it, either himself or through agents, may leave it in the hands of the administrator. However it is a better and safer thing that the patrons hold it themselves. Then where it occurs later for the Friars to have to spend, then the Friars may ask them. However, as I was saying, it may not be done with or without such necessity.

“Furthermore I say that the Friars may not have any dominion over such pecuniary alms, nor ownership nor personal use. Rather those patrons who gave them or left them (or the heirs in fact) have the ownership while the alms go unspent. The Church does not derive ownership from these things and such kinds of indifferent recourse. Therefore, whose ownership is it? Whose money is it? Please, answer and show me whose ownership it is.”

Both Friars were quiet, having been silenced. Father George added, “Do you know, Fathers, who has the ownership of these things. Can you demonstrate it? Those who have it spent. The Friars have them brought to the administrator and they have them spent. Isn’t it obvious that they not only have the use but also take dominion over the alms? How much could be said about this passage! What will we say? That every time something can be obtained by begging it is not permissible to have it bought. I will leave you to judge whether this precept is contravened among you.”

(318) One of the two Fathers replied, “If these things you say may be true, and this is not conceded, why have you had to do such an impetuous and scandalous novelty as leaving us just to do the right thing in every thing. Tell me. If you didn’t want to handle money or the other things that you say are superfluous and not necessary, who ever forced you to do so? You could have and should have renounced active and passive voice in so far as you have lived with these scruples of yours, and stayed in a house and in lived in peace in the Order where you were called.”

Il Giorgio replied. “I will give two replies to your words. But before I speak I want to let the Rule speak for us. It says that in whatever place the Friars are, where they know they are unable to observe the Rule spiritually, they may and they should have recourse to their Ministers, etc. We understand this to mean, as Martin V puts it, that there the Rule cannot be spiritually observed when some ownership is connected with that friary, like having possessions, houses, vines and having the care of souls or in fact because that area or castle is inadequate to provide for the Friars when they beg. Instead at harvest time it is necessary to find and put things aside to live on for the year, to go questing and keep stores against the purity of the Rule. In that friary or in those parts there would be some strong danger of offending God and of the damnation of the soul and of the honour of the Order.

“However let us make this second point. Almost all the Doctors of the Order who speak about the Rule say that not being able to observe it spiritually is when it is not observed according to its rigour, strictness and purity by having recourse to money against the Rule. Similarly, since being able to have it is a proximate occasion of sin, not being able to have it is tranquillity of heart, candour of conscience and purity of heart. However, who clarifies this passage better than Saint Francis? He was accustomed to say that something is done spiritually which is done purely and religiously, according to the spirit and not according to the flesh. Therefore he said, ‘Let the Friars be careful that above all things they desire to have the Spirit of the Lord and his holy operation, etc. ‘What is difficult for us, and if I were to say it is impossible I would not tell a lie, is to have it among you. Our Father says about this that when this is missing we must and can have recourse to the Ministers. When he says ‘they should,’ he commands that they must have recourse. And with the words ‘they may’ he doesn’t want them to be impeded. Before we made this move or did this new thing, as you call it, we had recourse to he Reverend Father General. We asked him for a place to reform ourselves and live spiritually according to what the Rule requires. The good Father should have welcomed his sons with open arms and granted them the just grace they asked. He despised the freedom Saint Francis gives to the subjects in chapter ten; ‘in whatever place the Friars are, etc.’ Therefore we did not fail to have recourse. Then speaking about Ministers, of whom the first is the General, Saint Francis continues and says, ‘However let the Ministers receive them charitably and kindly. Let them have such familiarity with them so that they may speak and act as lords do with their servants. For this is the way it should be, that the Ministers be the servants of everyone.’ I return to what I was saying. Your Generalissimo, as he is called, has little regard for this freedom granted by Saint Francis to the Friars in such matters. At the same time, he takes little account of reform. He proved this in the Friary at Sigliano by imprisoning those poor Friars who brought the letters we sent in order to make our request. So behold the charity and kindness that Saint Francis wants shown to the Friars in such matters. Therefore, neither you nor anyone else should be surprised if we have removed ourselves from your company with this novelty.

(319) “We come now to the two answers I promised to give you. First of all I reply to the point you said that it was easy for us to remain with you with a sure conscience, renouncing active voice, etc. I say this would be impossible to do, to remain still and live in peace and see things go as they go. Furthermore, anyone among you who wants to live this way, and there is always some one who says so, they hurl at him so many derogatory words that in order to live tranquil and to continue spiritually, as the Rule says, he would need the patience of Job. One who is naturally blind can live in calm since he is blind. However what about the one who sees and does not want what he sees. So this is easy to say but very diffuclt to do. However, what is more important is this. If a body which is sick with fever, how can the left or right arm say to any other part of the body, ‘I am well. I am not sick?’ Certainly the arm cannot say it because if the whole body is suffering, all its members suffer. With the bread which is eaten and which comes from your granaries; with that wine which is drunk which comes from the cellar of the house; with those usual dishes which are eaten as soon as they come; and with the thousands of other useless expenses which are made, how can the conscience remain calm and the mind tranquil? The one who eats, drinks and uses the other purchased things – and God knows how they are purchased – how can he stay with his heart in peace? I want you to understand that such a one has fallen asleep, if he is actually alive, for he resembles a dead man. As the saying goes, that the one who has skinned the stolen animal has to pay as much as the one who stole it. What else is our staying with you and living how you do if not tacit approval? It does not just happen in a particular place but even throughout the whole Province. Therefore this seems to be impossible. Therefore we have done what you see we have done.

“Because you call our action fickleness and a scandalous novelty, please be ready to listen. I am sure that you know the Rule and the declarations of the Supreme Pontiffs. Similarly I know that you have read all about the zeal of our early Fathers and also how there have been such Fathers zealous about our Rule progressively down to our own times. Therefore as I do the same thing it is not without amazement and surprise at your actions, hearing you disparage it because we have left and that you would call it fickleness and a scandalous novelty.

(320) [“Now in order to have you understand and likewise to tell you our reasons so that you may better understand me, I will do a very general overview.

“You know therefore that after the death of our Father Saint Francis how the Order remained on its feet for some time, even though it was short. The Order lived universally in the observance of the Rule. However, then Brother Elias came along. He was always a very lax Friar. He asked almost countless privileges against the purity of the Rule from His Holiness and diluted regular life in various other ways in such a way that because of him everything went to ruins. However Saint Anthony of Padua and other zealous Friars resisted him courageously as his relaxed life and bad governance increased. Because of this, the aforesaid Brother Anthony and Brother Adam of Marisco with many other holy and zealous Friars had recourse to the Supreme Pontiff. In the Chapter gathered in Rome with Gregory IX present his relaxations were exposed. His Holiness deprived Brother Elias of the Generalate. Brother Albert of Pisa, of the Province of Tuscany, was elected in his place. It was the year 1232. That General was a very zealous, learned and holy man. With Brother Haymo English, by the arm of His Holiness Gregory IX, they removed all the transgressions and abuses of Brother Elias from the Order. Then with many other zealous Friars the General, with the support of His Holiness, maintained the Order in the observance of the Rule. At that time Brother Leo, Brother Angelo, Brother Rufino and Brother Giles and many other companions of Saint Francis were still alive. After the death of Brother Albert, Haymo the Englishman was elected General. Because he was of the same spirit and very zealous, as much as was possible with the support of Gregory IX he kept the Order strong in the observance of the Rule. Brother Crescentius of Iesi from the Province of the Marches succeeded him. He was elected in 1245. Gregory IX had already died and Innocent IV had assumed the Pontificate. Because Brother Crescentius was more zealous about the Rule, during that time the enemy of human nature raised up a great persecution against those zealous about the Rule. He had many of them die in prison. He brought down the poor Order so far that if God had not provided, it would have been completely ruined. However, as it pleased God, secretly and without a noise Brother Crescentius was removed from office and made Bishop of Iesi. However he was able to enjoy the Episcopate for only a short time, for shortly afterwards he went to give account to the Lord God. The venerable holy man, blessed John of Parma, was elected. He reformed the Order.

“This venerable Father was elected in the year 1248, in the fourth year of Innocent IV. With great holiness he governed the Order nine years. However when he saw that he could not maintain the Order in the observance of the Rule he resigned from the Generalate, citing his inability. Saint Bonaventure succeeded him. He strove very much to reform. Among other things he ordered that the Friars not use glass or pewter vessels at table. Blessed Giles was still alive at this time. He died six years after Saint Bonaventure was elected. The Order lived very well during the time of Saint Bonaventure. After he died, the venerable Father Bonagratia became General in the year 1279. He commanded under pain of excommunication that in the place of the Portiuncola the Friars were not to receive any money offering either themselves or through any intermediary. Such offerings had to be returned to the patrons. Later, however, during the time of Clement V the order was very lax in its buildings, its clothing, its stores of grain, wine and other alms, as well as in the reception of annual and perpetual bequests. In that time Father Ubertino of Casale, Brother Raymond Gaufreddi and many other zealous Friars had recourse to the Supreme Pontiff. Then the Council was congregated in Vienna on the first of October 1306 and it concluded in the May the following year after the Ascension of the Lord. The Council itself decided in the controversy between Ubertine and his followers, who were for the observance of the Rule, and Brother Alexander of Alexandria who defended the relaxed life of the Community. The Council declared that the lax life led by the common relaxation of the Friars was not licit for Friars Minor. This matter was committed to the Superiors of the order, burdening their consciences that they should take away all the abuses and relations about dress, granaries, and the like. In no way should they receive perpetual requests and certain yearly alms. When the venerable Father Consalvo Minister General at the time, receive those decisions from the Sacred Council, he visited the whole Order. Where he found sumptuous he either removed the Friars or had them pull the buildings down. He stripped the Friars of odd habits and superfluous clothing. He paid back annual and perpetual patrimonies to the proper patrons. Acting courageously he reformed the whole Order, both the Community and individual Friars even though because of this he suffered many persecutions from relaxed Friars and he lay down his own life. However, all this was a double crown for him, just as he revealed to one of his devotees when he appeared to him after receiving his martyrdom.

“In 1323, after Clement V and Brother Alexander of Alexandria, the defender of the relaxed life had died, in the Province and Custody of Narbonne, since the Friars of the Community had granaries, cellars and many incursions against the Rule, some zealous Friars rose against the Community. They stripped off their odd habits and put on lowly, heavy habits. With the support of seculars they took the Friary of Narbonne and other nearby friaries, and removed lax Guardians and Custodes and put in Friars zealous for the observance of the Rule. Thus in that Province as in others too, while not worrying about sustaining woes and physical death in order to live with a safe conscience. There was a great upheaval throughout the Order at that time between the zealous sand lax Friars.

“What can I say about the time of Pope John XXII? Cruelly persecuted by lax Friars, many Friars poured out their blood for the sake of zeal for the Rule. What can we say about the time when William Farinerio became General in 1348 during the time of Clement VI? He reformed the lax way of living by having the Constitutions of Saint Bonaventure observed, even though he did not contribute any of his own. What can we say about 1352? When Brother Gentile of Spoleto, from the Province of Saint Francis, and many other zealous Friars saw the Order relaxed, they appealed to Clement VI. Many important persons helped them with His Holiness. They succeeded in having four places given them in the Province of Saint Franics. These were the friary of the Carcere in Assisi, the friary at Giano, the friary of the Romita de Cesi, and the friary of Monteluco at Spoleto. In each of these friaries twelve friars could be accommodated. These Friars could be received either from the Order or from seculars or wherever they would come from. Immediately they made narrow, small and lowly habits which were completely different from those of the Community in their measurements, lowliness and shape. In the Bull His Holiness commanded they might not be impeded by anyone. This Reform brought great joy to all the zealous Friars. However, when Clement VI died in that same year and Innocent VI was created, the General Chapter congregated in Assisi. The lax Friars worried that the Reform would go ahead. They set so many snares that they brought the Reform down.

“Therefore, my Fathers, see if the spirit of condemnation towards this life of ours is satisfactory to you. Now if you condemn it, it is as good as condemning your own Reform which, as you say, began with Brother Paoluccio of Foligno, a lat friar and holy man. His relative, the Lord of Foligno, supported the beginning of your Reform. He obtained from the General of the time the devout friary at Brugliano, situated in the mountains of Foligno. In all the Provinces many other zealous Friars were moved by this holy example. The zealous Friars were unable to defend themselves from the lax and loose Friars because at the time the Church was in schism for many years. With one Pope residing in Rome and the other in Avignon they didn’t know which to believe and to which of these to have recourse. However, as it pleased God, when the Council of Constance met in 1405 under Martin V, the zealous Friars had recourse to that Council. That Council gave it a Vicar General, namely Brother Nicholas Radulfi. He was the first Vicar of your Reform and they were called Friars of the Observance. Then your Reform separated from the Community. Then Martin V died and Eugene IV assumed the Papacy in 1443. His Holiness wanted the General at the time, Brother Anthony de Rusconibus, to order a Commissary General for your Reform from here to the Alps. He gave them Brother John Mauberto. No long after he gave Brother John of Capistrano as Commissary beyond the Alps. In Italy, because of the preaching and the good example of Saint Bernardine, many Friars reformed themselves and Pope Eugene issued a Bull in favour of the Reform so that it could elect its own Vicars General and Provincials without encumbering the Conventuals any more, just like us Capuchins. They were not called Ministers or Generals, but Vicars General and Provincials. His Holiness wanted the Vicars General and Provincials to have the same authority that the Ministers have. From then on your Congregation lived separately under Vicars General and Provincials as we do. If you deny it, and how can you, that Capuchins cannot be under Vicars General and Provincials, it will be necessary to say that you cannot be there either. If you assert that you can be there, you confirm also that we can be Capuchins Clement VII had the same authority as Eugene IV who allowed the Observants to stay under Vicars and not Ministers, the name not being all that important.

“Now let us put all this aside and return to where I left off. From 1495 to the time of Eugene when the reform of your observance began there were about ninety-four years during which the Friars of the observance were under the Conventual Ministers.

“Now we come to another little point, and if it tires you, my Fathers, have patience.

“In 1502, under Alexander VI, Father Berardino of Feltro and Father Angelo of Clavasio in Spain, in the Custody of the Angels, saw that the Friars of the family universally no longer lived in the pure observance of the Rule. They provided the occasion from which a Reform was born. It still endures. Hence moved by holy zeal Father John of Guadalupe of that Province had recourse to the Roman Court and obtained permission through a Brief to be able to live in a reformed way and as Custos to receive whichever Friars he liked. Neither he nor his companions were subject to anyone except to the General so that they could live in the observance of the Rule and the Holy Gospel with greater calm. But what did your Friars do? They couldn’t bear to see those poor fellows make progress apace in the pure observance of the Rule. They made use of Queen Elizabeth. She was a truly holy and very prudent woman and was regarded by popular opinion and reputation to be the best Queen in her day. Nonetheless she let herself be persuaded by the words and arguments of your Friars at the time. Because of her Pope Alexander VI himself revoked the Brief already given to the poor Reformed Friars and had them return to the others, just as you think to do with us. However we have hope in God that through his goodness he will help us, just as he has inspired us to do what we have done. So those poor fellows left the friaries they had taken up, compelled to obey the Pope. When the above mention Brother John saw this, he set out on a journey to Rome to petition His Holiness and to make every effort to obtain again that lost entitlement. However, while he was on the journey the Lord God called him to a better life and with him was extinguished the whole design. However Father Angelo with Father Peter of Melgara obtained a Brief from Julius II to be able to continue the begun Reform, and to take up the friaries that had been left. And so they remain this way until the present.]

“Therefore this novelty of ours has not been the first in the Order. On the contrary, any one who discusses it will find that there have been many like ours. Because it has happened many times, therefore it is not something new. Consequently it must not be called a novelty. Rather it must be called licit and right. Indeed it is necessary to do it and must be done when to do otherwise is not acceptable.

“But tell me, when do you think the Order was more lax? Was it when your Reform came about? Or is it now when our own Reform has come out? I would say also that your Reform is further from the observance of the Rule than the Order ever was when your Reform began. If your Reform is licit and you preach it as a holy Reform, why wouldn’t ours be licit?”

Here Father George went silent. Then the Duke turned and said to the two other Friars, “Do you have anything to reply to these things?” They agreed that what Father George had said about all the Reforms was true.