[{{{type}}}] {{{reason}}}
{{/data.error.root_cause}}{{texts.summary}} {{#options.result.rssIcon}} RSS {{/options.result.rssIcon}}
{{/texts.summary}} {{#data.hits.hits}}
{{{_source.title}}} {{#_source.showPrice}} {{{_source.displayPrice}}} {{/_source.showPrice}}
{{#_source.showLink}} {{/_source.showLink}} {{#_source.showDate}}{{{_source.displayDate}}}
{{/_source.showDate}}{{{_source.description}}}
{{#_source.additionalInfo}}{{#_source.additionalFields}} {{#title}} {{{label}}}: {{{title}}} {{/title}} {{/_source.additionalFields}}
{{/_source.additionalInfo}}
and when they had received a blessing they went back to their own places.
It is the holy brother Leo who testifies to this; he was there for it all and heard the Lord Jesus Christ speaking.
32So, is there anyone left who is still unconvinced? If not, then let us no longer harden our hearts to the Rule's observance. Through those he spoke to from heaven Jesus was speaking to all, and bearing witness to a Rule that is holy and apostolic. He signified that it was apostolic by dividing it into twelve chapters, as if they were twelve apostolic foundation stones and twelve gates leading into the gospel life. It is like the new Jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven, on whose gates are written the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. And doubtless a river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb, flows down the middle of its street; for the Holy Spirit's influence is poured out generously upon it in a broad stream of charity, and it is only through that charity that a Gospel Rule can be resolutely adopted, fruitfully professed, and observed as sacrosanct.a
- In 445b-447b the text proceeds to support Hugh of Digne, designating him a "saintly brother," who wrote a Commentary on the Rule in the mid-1240s or probably in 1253. Cf. Hugh of Digne, Hugh of Digne's Rule Commentary, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum XIV, ed. David Flood, (Grottaferrata, Rome: Collegium S. Bonaventura Ad Claras Aquas, 1979). The Declaration Quo elongati (1230) of Gregory IX which had decided the non-obligatory character of The Testament, from a strictly legal standpoint, had thereby opened the way for expositions of the Rule, private or official, on the part of the Order. Hugh, however, strongly dissociated himself from "expositors" and "glossators," claiming to be the Rule's "defender" in searching for its meaning in the "letter," rather than in the "mind of the one who put it together"—which he regards as a subterfuge. Since Ubertino concurs with this, and quotes Hugh's words, the latter must mean the presumed "intention" of the Rule's author rather than that testified to in eye-witness accounts.