J
JReducation
Guest
It was Pope John Paul II who actually said that St. Francis had restored religious life to its ancient form. He was referring to the absence of the distinction between ordained and non-ordained and the emphasis on the ordained forming the choir of a monastery. This was not part of religious life when it began. There were very few priests and in most communities, there were not priests. It’s the religious life, independent of the priesthood, that Pope John Paul refers to. The point that he is making is that Francis re-introduces the idea that the religious life is not dependent of Holy Orders, but Holy Orders is accidental to religious life. It was priests who joiined the religious, not the priesthood that gives religious life its definitive character.
As to the plain chant to which Francsicans refer, it’s not the same as that of St. Gregory and his time. When they say plain chant, they mean a chant that is almost like a humming. I wish that we could have sound bites on these posts, LOL. If I were to describe it, it’s like speaking with a musical intonation. It was much simpler than the plain chant that eventually evolved into full-blow Gregorian Chant. The idea was to do the very minimum just to comply with the law. Once the law was changed, it was no longer used. Today, it’s no longer in use. We have our own Missal, Lectionary and Breviary with our own rubrics. While there is a great deal of overlap between that and the Roman missal, there are also differences.
The point here is not to discuss the history of religious life. I was trying to respond to your observation that it was strange that he would ban Gregorian Chant. I also want to help others see that not everything that appears hostile or contrary is what it looks like. There can be very legitimate reasons for it.
I go back to the point that I made earlier. I would not call Francis hostile toward Gregorian Chant or hostile toward monasticism, because he banned the former and avoided the latter. In the same way, I hesitate to call hostile anyone who resists Latin. We must understand what it is that people see and why they see it that way. Just as we understand why the Franciscan men were mandated to state clear from all forms of Gregorian Chant and recognition of the clergy with our fraternities and it makes sense to us, we must also understand why others wish to stay clear of something like Latin in their daily mass.
I should add here, that we do have Latin in our daily mass as you may have seen on EWTN, but it is done very simply. If you notice, only one friar celebrates the mass and the few friars who are present are serving. Every possible means are made to avoid celebrating mass with the lay faithful, because they would not understand why we do some things. If you watch the mass on EWTN, you do not see the entire fraternity at the mass. They have a separate mass, which is much more austere. The mass that you see on EWTN was originally for the nuns when they lived at that house and the EWTN staff. Mother Angelica decided to run it over the air for shut-ins and sick people who could not make it to daily mass. It was such a good idea that it stuck long after she and the nuns moved out.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
However, if you have a true relic of St. Francis, you omit the veneration of the successors and you venerate the relic. It’s the only time that the relic is brought out.
