How do Protestants view Francis of Assisi?

[Duvduv]

Although he remained loyal to the Catholic Church and its doctrines, he seems to have succeed by withdrawing from any confrontation with any authorities. How do Protestant denominations view Francis of Assisi in comparison say to John Wycliffe, Jon Huss, etc.?

 

[Radagast]

Although he remained loyal to the Catholic Church and its doctrines, he seems to have succeed by withdrawing from any confrontation with any authorities.

Actually, a group of Francis' followers (the "Fraticelli") were condemned as heretical in 1296, and a number of other leading Franciscans were imprisoned. So yes, there was a confrontation.

Some Protestants see Francis as a forerunner of the Reformation.

 

[HereIStand]

He seems to be viewed positively from what I've perceived. I have guitar instrumental CD by Phil Keaggy, a Christian contemporary artist. Inside the CD is the quote attributed to St. Francis, "Preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words." Although St. Francis is known to have been a preacher who used words.

 

[Albion]

I think the average Protestant knows relatively little about any of those people but certainly less about Wycliffe and Hus than about Francis whom they most likely know as an early ecologist...an perhaps also because of the Prayer of St. Francis, which he did not write.

 

[Mountainmike]

Actually, a group of Francis' followers (the "Fraticelli") were condemned as heretical in 1296, and a number of other leading Franciscans were imprisoned. So yes, there was a confrontation.

Some Protestants see Francis as a forerunner of the Reformation.

The fraticelli were a small group of extremists and held heretical views. They are not a measure of Francis himself. They were for example donatists , a heresy outed centuries before, and claimed they alone had the true faith. They gave the pope little choice.

Whist the analogy is far from perfect, it gives a flavour saying that the fraticelli were to Francis what ISIS is to Islam.

 

[redleghunter]

Although he remained loyal to the Catholic Church and its doctrines, he seems to have succeed by withdrawing from any confrontation with any authorities. How do Protestant denominations view Francis of Assisi in comparison say to John Wycliffe, Jon Huss, etc.?

Cool dude. Had a mission to the poor.

 

[dreadnought]

Although he remained loyal to the Catholic Church and its doctrines, he seems to have succeed by withdrawing from any confrontation with any authorities. How do Protestant denominations view Francis of Assisi in comparison say to John Wycliffe, Jon Huss, etc.?

I don't think most Protestants are that deeply into church history.

 

[Radagast]

The fraticelli were a small group of extremists and held heretical views. They are not a measure of Francis himself.

Whatever Francis himself thought (and much of what we "know" about him is myth), he started a revolution, with the Fraticelli being a major part of the Franciscan Order. Some would say that the Fraticelli were the ones who truly carried on the teachings of their founder. Indeed, the Blessed John of Parma, the 6th Minister General of the Order, was one of the Fraticelli.

St Bonaventure, the 7th Minister General of the Order, succeeded in putting the revolution back into the box. Had he not done so, Church History might have run a very different course.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think most Protestants are that deeply into church history.

Whaaaat?

 

[Mountainmike]

Whatever Francis himself thought (and much of what we "know" about him is myth), he started a revolution, with the Fraticelli being a major part of the Franciscan Order. Some would say that the Fraticelli were the ones who truly carried on the teachings of their founder. Indeed, the Blessed John of Parma, the 6th Minister General of the Order, was one of the Fraticelli.

St Bonaventure, the 7th Minister General of the Order, succeeded in putting the revolution back into the box. Had he not done so, Church History might have run a very different course.

The fraticelli were extremists in view, and heretics and certainly not representative of either Francis or franciscans generally.

You see the true reflection of St Francis Far better in such as the poor Clare's.
Study them to see the spirit of St Francis.

It is not a perfect analogy, but The fraticelli were to Francis what ISIS is to Islam.
Extreme viewpoints that became so far removed they lost connection with the core. Sure they opposed the catholic hierarchy, which makes them a cause Celebre for Protestants, but most Protestants would Find many of their views reprehensible. Remember the truism... " the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend"

Study the poor Clare's to see the spirit of St Francis.

 

[Babe Ruth]

My anecdotal experience, Francis is known in the non-Catholic world (solely) for his relationship with (& compassion for) animals.
Not a bad reputation to have, it's just incomplete..

 

[Radagast]

The fraticelli were extremists in view, and heretics and certainly not representative of either Francis or franciscans generally.

They would beg to differ. So would the Blessed John of Parma, the 6th Minister General of the Franciscan Order.

But they were suppressed, so there are no more Fraticelli to ask.

As I said, St Bonaventure, the 7th Minister General of the Order, succeeded in putting the revolution back into the box.

However, there is a fairly good (though not perfect) portrayal of the Fraticelli in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.

 

[Mountainmike]

As an avid reader - I will read it, it could be interesting

But please do note what I said. They were demonstrably extremist ( not in the sense of violence, but in having extreme interpretations of doctrine) - no question about that.
They for example were donatists.That is they claimed that only spotless priests could administer valid sacraments. They came to the conclusion also, they were the only spotless ones! Heresies such as this were outlawed long before their time! So the fact they were deemed heretics was not a knee jerk reaction to a pain in the churches backside, it was demonstrable in their stated views, and orthodox to reject it. Augustine is for example hot against donatism, and gives the entire list of Popes from the first to his time as support for his opposition to Donatism! - which is one of the reasons we have a full list of popes.

As I understand it, there were also two opposed factions within the fraticelli, that gave the pope headaches trying to reconcile the two disagreeing factions let alone their disagreement with the establishment church.

They would beg to differ. So would the Blessed John of Parma, the 6th Minister General of the Franciscan Order.

But they were suppressed, so there are no more Fraticelli to ask.

As I said, St Bonaventure, the 7th Minister General of the Order, succeeded in putting the revolution back into the box.

However, there is a fairly good (though not perfect) portrayal of the Fraticelli in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.

 

[PloverWing]

Although he remained loyal to the Catholic Church and its doctrines, he seems to have succeed by withdrawing from any confrontation with any authorities. How do Protestant denominations view Francis of Assisi in comparison say to John Wycliffe, Jon Huss, etc.?

The story of the Medieval western church as I have most often heard it told by Protestants is that the church did many wonderful things, but (being an organization full of human beings) also strayed from its mission from time to time, getting distracted by wealth, political power, or simple complacency. Reformers periodically emerged from within the church to call it back to its central mission. Sometimes these reforms were at least partially successful and were incorporated into the life of the church; the founders of the monastic orders, including Francis of Assisi, are examples of this. Sometimes the reforms were strongly resisted by the church and resulted in schism; the Reformation is the most notable example of this.

 

[Duvduv]

Ploverwing, is your view a consensus among Protestants, or do some denominations simply want to dismiss him as a naive idealist who didn't condemn the corruption of the Church??

 

[PloverWing]

Ploverwing, is your view a consensus among Protestants, or do some denominations simply want to dismiss him as a naive idealist who didn't condemn the corruption of the Church??

Protestants are such a diverse group that I would almost never speak of a consensus among Protestants.

The version I gave in the previous post is the way it was presented to me by my historical theology professors at Wheaton College, which is an Evangelical Protestant college.

Some Protestants are more strongly condemning of Catholicism, and might have views like you describe; I can't say. The view of my theology professors, and the view of the church I currently attend, is that medieval Catholicism was mostly on the right track, and just needed a few reforms along the way, so we're not looking for some medieval figure to give a loud condemnation of the church as a whole. Francis believed that the church was neglecting the poor, and he called attention to that need. That's enough for the work of one man's lifetime. Such corrections are needed in every generation.

 

[dreadnought]

Whaaaat?

For Protestants, church history doesn't go back that far.

 

[Duvduv]

I would think that strong Protestants would feel that Francis was unwilling to challenge the corruption of Roman Catholicism....

 

[dreadnought]

I would think that strong Protestants would feel that Francis was unwilling to challenge the corruption of Roman Catholicism....

But Francis came centuries before the Protestant Reformation. How many even know who he is?

 

[Duvduv]

One would assume that Francis knew about the corruption, indulgences, etc. and didn't want to challenge the leadership about it, as Wycliffe and Huss would do.