Franciscan Leader

Philip O'Mara

Description

This short work has been used in religious communities for centuries to study the virtues of a religious superior. Its popularity stems from its practical moral psychology, its brief and memorable allegory, and its happy use of abundant scripture.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie
• History of religions
• Christianity

Informations

• Publié par: The Franciscan Institute
• Date de parution: 01 janvier 2007
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781576595275
• Langue: English

Extrait

T HE F RANCISCAN L EADER

AT S M V W S ODERN ERSION OF HE IX INGS OF THE ERAPH

A N A NONYMOUS F RANCISCAN T REATISE  T S . B IN THE RADITION OF T ONAVENTURE

T RANSLATEDBY P HILIP O’M ARA

T HE F RANCISCAN L EADER

AM ODERN V ERSIONOF T HE S IX W INGSOFTHE S ERAPH

A N A NONYMOUS F RANCISCAN T REATISE  T S . B IN THE RADITION OF T ONAVENTURE

T RANSLATEDBY P HILIP O’M ARA

Francîscan Instîtute Pubîcatîons St. Bonaventure Unîversîty St. Bonaventure, New York

© 2013 Francîscan Instîtute Pubîcatîons St. Bonaventure Unîversîty St. Bonaventure, New York

ISBN 1-57659-126-3

Thîs îs a new and revîsed edîtîon ofThe Character of a Chrîstîan Leader,orîgînay tîtedThe Sîx Wîngs of the Ser- aph by St. Bonaventure,transated by Phîîp O’Mara. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1978. Scrîpture quotatîons are taken from The Revîsed Stan- dard Versîon Bîbe, copyrîghted 1946, 1952, © 1971, 1973 by the Dîvîsîon of Chrîstîan Educatîon of the Natîona Councî of the Churches of Chrîst în the U.S.A. and used by permîs- sîon.

Francîscan Instîtute Pubîcatîons St. Bonaventure Unîversîty St. Bonaventure, New York 14778

Prînted and bound în the Unîted States of Amerîca.

Francîscan Instîtute Pubîcatîons makes every effort to use envîronmentay responsîbe suppîers and materîas în the pubîshîng of îts books. Thîs book îs prînted on acîd free, recyced paper that îs FSC (Forest Stewardshîp Councî) certîied. It îs prînted wîth soy-based înk.

P REFACE

I NTRODUCTION

C ONTENTS

P ROLOGUE C O : HAPTER NE T HE N EEDFOR C HRISTIAN L EADERS

C T : HAPTER WO Z R EAL FOR IGHTEOUSNESS

C HAPTER T HREE : B L ROTHERLY OVE

C F : HAPTER OUR P ATIENCE

C F : HAPTER IVE G E OOD XAMPLE

C S : HAPTER IX G OOD J UDGMENT

C HAPTER S EVEN : D G EVOTION TO OD

T ’ N RANSLATOR S OTE

vîî

xîîî

xî

1

7

17

23

31

39

57

67

P REFACE

P REFACE

vîî

In the mîd-1970s I was îvîng în Ann Arbor, Mîchîgan, and workîng as a researcher for varîous enterprîses assocî- ated wîth the movement for charîsmatîc renewa. Some of my work was în servîce to a arge, mosty Cathoîc charîsmatîc communîty, then caed The Word of God, for whîch I dîrected a sma pastora reference îbrary. Otherwîse I dîd fact-check- îng, feature and revîew wrîtîng, and edîtorîa work for the charîsmatîc pubîshîng house, Servant Books, and for the magazîne,New Covenant,whîch cîrcuated to prayer groups and communîtîes a over the natîon and beyond. Thanks to an undergraduate mînor în Cassîcs, and to frequent use of Latîn sources în my years at Notre Dame, where I obtaîned a Ph.D. în Engîsh, I am a competent Latînîst, and I was often asked to ind references în the Fathers of the Church and în varîous medîeva works of spîrîtuaîty. Thus, when I was gîven an opportunîty to transate a short treatîse on monas- tîc eadershîp,De Sex Aîs Seraphîm,from the Latîn edîtîon of the works of St. Bonaventure, I set to work wîth no mîs- gîvîngs. Soon, hopîng to make sure that I woud be faîthfu to the author’s centra îdeas, I acquîred offprînts of a few artî- ces on St. Bonaventure’s stye and spîrîtua teachîng. Years before, I had used hîs ongerLîfe of St. Francîsfor spîrîtua readîng. (My mîdde name, taken în Conirmatîon, îs Francîs; ît relects a îfeong înterest that has ed to wîde readîng and some carefu study.) I had met up wîth Bonaventurîan ma- terîas from tîme to tîme în the course of îterary research. As I worked on the transatîon, however, I found to my dîsmay that neîther the schoary artîces on St. Bonaven- ture, nor my recoectîons of hîs other works, nor my genera knowedge of the Francîscan Order were of any hep to me.

vîîîT HE F RANCISCAN L EADER Graduay I became convînced, for reasons that I eventuay pubîshed în a separate artîce, that the treatîse had not been întended for the Frîars Mînor at a, but for other reîgîous communîtîes. That artîce, whîch requîred wîde-rangîng research and whîch I dîd not inîsh for severa years, îs re- prînted în thîs book. I need ony admît here that, as I contîn- ued my work on the transatîon, ît came as a compete sur- prîse to earn that the Francîscan famîy, as far back as the ast years of the thîrteenth century, aready încuded not ony frîars, coîstered nuns, and secuar tertîarîes but aso tertî- arîes îvîng a common îfe and professîng reîgîous vows. I wrote a memorandum to the edîtorîa board, suggestîng that we încude a statement to the effect that the treatîse had apparenty been întended for members of the Thîrd Order Reguar, not for the Francîscan Frîars. It was decîded, how- ever, that an edîtîon prîncîpay întended to hep ay eaders of charîsmatîc prayer groups dîd not need to be burdened wîth a dîscussîon of thîs questîon. The transatîon went through severa changes, and I am gratefu stî for the ong, hard work of my edîtor, Nîchoas Cavnar, and to the vounteer typîst, the ate Marga Pîcard, who heped me patîenty through the many revîsîons that were needed. Then, on the very day when we went to press, as I checked a schoary artîce on a competey dîfferent sub- ject, I ran înto a reference to Father Ignatîus Brady’s caîm that St. Bonaventure had not wrîttenDe Sex Aîs Seraphîm at a. Once I read Father Brady’s arguments, I fet no more guît about havîng mîssed a the Bonaventurîan features of the book. I had been faîîng to see what wasn’t there. Readers of the întroductory artîce “Advîce to Superîors,” reprînted here wîth severa sma correctîons, wî see that, after a good dea of tîme în severa îbrarîes, I have been abe, not to îdentîfy the prîest who actuay wrote thîs brîef work, but to descrîbe the cîrcumstances and peope for whom he wrote. The author, who remaîns anonymous, was a fourteenth- century Francîscan prîest, one who had studîed St. Bernard and St. Bonaventure, one who had sharp eyes (and occasîon- ay a downrîght cynîca tongue) for foy and wrongdoîng and

P REFACE îx astîng zea for the kîngdom of God. He beîeved that cear- sîghted, strong eadershîp was entîrey compatîbe wîth com- passîon for human fraîty and wîth profound Chrîstîan pîety. At a tîme when many ay Francîscans were adoptîng com- munîty îfe and when communîtîes of Beghards and some others were afiîatîng wîth the Francîscans, he offered hîs treatîse as a guîde to effectîve eadershîp. Consequenty, în a work desîgned to hep reîgîous superîors, he made no bones about the necessîty, as he saw ît, for the exercîse of irm head- shîp în reîgîous communîtîes. He had a cear awareness that deep spîrîtuaîty îs most rea when ît îs most fuy exercîsed în ove of neîghbor, and I soon found that when he used the termpîetasthe name of the second Seraphîc vîrtue of a as eader (Chapter Three), hîs depîctîon of thîs vîrtue requîred me to transate the word, not as “pîety” but as “brothery ove.” In thîs transatîon I have trîed to convey both hîs con- vîctîon that reîgîous communîtîes need vîgorous dîrectîon and hîs awareness, demonstrated în hîs non-technîca and varîed termînoogy, that dîfferent cîrcumstances ca for lex- îbîîty în choosîng the peope responsîbe for such dîrectîon and în decîdîng on îts scope. Ordînarîy, I have adopted these transatîons for the author’s vocabuary of eadershîp:

caput:head custos: guardîan (used ony rarey, perhaps an îso- ated survîva of the Frîars’ nomencature) magîster:guîde, dîrector praeesse:to dîrect, to govern praeatus:eader, head rector:guîde, dîrector superîor:guîde zeator:dîrector

The orîgîna edîtîon, prepared at a tîme when many Cathoîc charîsmatîc groups were attracted to theorîes about strîct eadershîp and, when some groups were reay înfatu- ated wîth theîr own specîa termînoogy, made excessîve use of the words “head” and “headshîp.” The Latîn orîgîna, as îs shown above, uses severa dîfferent words for eadershîp, and