The rule of the Secular Franciscan Order: Origins, development, interpretatio

The Secular Franciscan Order, which prior to 1978 was called the Franciscan Third Order Secular, received a new Rule on June 24, 1978. This new Rule claims to present, in the language and theology of the Second Vatican Council, the thirteenth century Rule of the "Third Order" as "founded" by St. Francis. This dissertation seeks to provide a critical analysis of that new Rule.;Chapter I examines the earliest sources concerning the origins of the Secular Franciscan Order. Since these accounts claim that Francis gave a Rule or "norm of life" to his lay followers, the writings of Francis are then explored in an attempt to identify this "primitive Rule." Chapter II, following an historical-critical approach, attempts to identify the historical context of the "primitive Rule" of this order of penitents. The second chapter examines the evolution of the Order of Penance and of the lay apostolic movements in an attempt to illuminate the social and religious context of Francis and the early Franciscan penitents. Chapter III then analyzes Francis' guidance for these lay followers. The third chapter analyzes both versions of what has been traditionally known as the Letter to All the Faithful (the Epistola ad Fideles); it then reviews how the primitive Rule developed by analyzing the Memoriale propositi of 1221 and the officially approved Rule of 1289, the Supra Montem.;Chapter IV utilizes the approach of redaction criticism to study how the Rule of the Secular Franciscan Order developed from 1289 to 1978. The fourth chapter presents a comparative study of the Rule of 1289 and the Rule of 1883. It then examines the redactional process for the development of the new Rule of 1978 (from 1965 to 1978) through an analysis of the archival documents which preserve a record of that development. Finally, Chapter V suggests an approach for interpreting the new Rule. Utilizing a method suggested by the hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur, this final chapter proposes a method for moving beyond exegetical studies, for moving beyond what the Rule meant, to what the Rule means.