FRATICELLI
246
FRATIOELLI
Florence, was arrested 20 April, 1389, as he was about
to leave the city, and was condemned by the Francis-
can Archbishop of Florence, B:irtolonieo Oleari, to be
burned at the stake. He died chanting the Te Deuin,
while his followers, unmolested by the authorities,
exhorted him to remain steadfast (30 April, 1389).
To the end he maintained that John XXII had be-
come a heretic by his four decretals; that he and his
successors had forfeited the papacy, and that no priest
supporting them could absolve validly.
We have unmistakable evidence that several hereti- cal followers of Clareno were in the territory of Naples in 1362. Louis of Durazzo, a nephew of Robert, King of Naples, maintained a number of Fraticelli in a hospital adjoining his castle, Monte Sant' Angelo, and attended their services. These Fraticelli were divided into three sects: those acknowledging Tommaso da Bojano, former Bishop of Aquino; the followers of the pre- tended minister general, Bernard of Sicily; and those who claimed Angelo da Clareno as their founder and acknowledged only his successor as their general. All three sects agreed in holding that the true papacy had ceased since the alleged heresy of John XXII, but the party of the minister general held it lawful to accept, in case of necessity, the ministrations of priests who adhered to the papacy.
The "Poor Hermits" of Monte della Majella, near Sulmona, were also Fraticelli and adherents of Angelo da Clareno, and at one time afforded protection to the famous tribune of the people, Cola di Rienzi (1349). Fanatical as they were cm the subject of poverty, they were, in accordance with ancient custom, sheltered by the Celestine monks in the near-by abbey of Santo Spirito. The origin of the orthoilox Clareni, approved as true Franciscans by Sixtus IV in 1474, is unknown; nor is it clear whether they were followers of Angelo who kept aloof from heresy or, after falling into his error, retracted.
II. The second main group of Fraticelli, chronologi- cally considered, were the Spirituals who fled from Tuscany to Sicily, and were surnamed at first the Re- bellious Brothersand Apostates, but later the Fraticelli de paupere vita. It is an error to apply the name Beg- hards to them. When, in 1309, the differences be- tween the Relaxati and the Spirituals had reached a critical point, Clement V cited representatives of both parties to appear before the Curia with a view to adj usting their disputes. The result of this conference was the Constitution " Exivi de Paradiso", enacted at the final session of the Council of Vienne (6 May, 1312). This Constitution contained an explanation of the Rule of St. Francis along stricter lines than those of the Bull "Exiit qui seminat" of Nicholas III (14 August, 1279), and justified the Spirituals in various matters. This proceeding, however, only provoked the Relaxati superiors to take energetic measures against the Zelanti. Towards the end of 1312 a num- ber of Tuscan Spirituals deserted their monasteries and took forcible possession of the monasteries of Carmignano (near Florence), Arezzo, and Asciano, putting the Relaxati to fliglit. About fifty, fearing punishment, fled to Sicily. Clement V, hearing of the insurrection, commanded the Archbishop of Genoa and two other bishops to force them to return to obedience imder penalty of excommunication. As nearly all disregarded this manilate, the prior of San Fidele at Siena, who had been commissioned to exe- cute it, declared them excommunicated and placed their monasteries under interdict (14 May, 1314). Being also prosecuted by the Archbishop of Florence, the rebels made a soleiini protest against the violation of the rule on the part of the Community or Conven- tuals (7 July, 1313). As it soon became impossible for them to remain in Tuscany, they all fled to Sicily, where they were joined Ijy numerous Zelanti from Northern Italy and Southern France. King Frederick of Sicily, brotlier of King James II of Aragon, admit-
ted them after they had submitted their statutes to his
inspection. Fra Enrico da Ceva was now their leader.
On 23 January, 1318, Pope John XXII excommuni-
cated them in the Bull " Glorio.sani ecclesiam", speci-
fying five errors, to wit: (1) they designated the
Roman Church as carnal and corrupt, and themselves
as spiritual; (2) they denied to the Roman priesthood
all power and jurisdiction; (3) they forbade taking an
oath; (4) they taught that priests in the state of sin
could not confer the sacraments; and (5) they asserted
that thej^ alone were the true observers of the Gospel.
At this time they had adopted a close fitting, short,
antl filthy dress as their religious habit. John XXII
(15 March, 1317) admonished King Frederick to take
severe measures against them. In a letter of the same
date addressed by the cardinals at Avignon to the
entire hierarchy of Sicily, special stress was laid on the
fact that the rebellious fugitives had elected a superior
general, provincials, and guardians. Banished from
Sicily, where, however, some remained till at least
1328, they established themselves securely in Naples.
On 1 August, 1322, John XXII issued a general decree
against them, and after sending King Robert (4 Feb.,
1325) the Bulls specially directed against Ceva, on 10
May, 1325, demanded their imprisonment at the hands
of King Robert and of Charles, Duke of Calabria. The
pope had to repeat this admonition several times
(1330, 1331); meanwhile he had ordered the Francis-
can Provincial of Calabria (7 March, 1327) and the
inquisitors there (1327, 1330, 1331) to proceed against
the Fraticelli and had renewed (5 Dec, 1329) the in-
junctions laid down in the Bull " Ciloriosam Eccle-
siam". From this time onward the adherents of Ceva
are hardly to I >e distinguished from those of the follow-
ing group; they joined the Michaelites and used the
same methods of attack against the papacy. The
statement that some professed Mohammedanism may
be based on fact, considering their situation and the
local circumstances.
III. The third group of the Fraticelli are called the Michaelites, deriving their name from Michael of Cesena, their chief representative and natural leader. It must be premised that this name was in vo^ue dur- ing the fifteenth century and that the party it desig- nated exerted great influence in doctrinal matters on the other groups as early as 1329. It is to be noted also that shortly after this period it becomes difficult to dift'erentiate these groups with anything like pre- cision. The "theoretical" controversy about pov- erty carried on in the Franciscan Order, or rather, carried on against John XXII, gave occasion to the formation of this group. It is called "theoretical" to distinguish it from the "practical" controversy waged by the Spirituals relative to the practice of Franciscan poverty which they wished to observe, whereas the leaders in the present conflict were former members of the Relaxati party and sworn enemies of the Spirituals (1309-22).
In 1321 the Dominican Inquisitor at Narbonne, John of Belna, declared heretical the teaching of an impris- oned Beghard of that region, who asserted that Christ and the Apostles owned nothing either individually or in common. The Franciscan lector, B<5renger Talon, defended the Beghard. As he refused to retract and was threatened with punishment by the inquisitor, Berenger appealed to the pope. The matter soon de- veloped into a general controversy between the Do- minicans and Franciscans ; among the latter, Relaxati and Zelanti alike supported Berenger on the basis of the Bull of Nicholas III, "Exiit qui seminat". In that Bull Nicholas III had defined the poverty of the Franciscans, both individually and collectively, as equivalent to that of the Apostles, and had therefore transferred to the Roman Church all their holdings in land and houses, as had already been enacted by Inno- cent IV (14 Nov., 1245). The prohibition of Nicholas III to discuss this point was revoked by John XXII in
