Why did St. Francis ban Gregorian chant?

[FreciaMarie]

Franciscan Friars, not Fathers. There is on such an order. LOL

He spoke Provencal and French. French was his mother tongue. Many people don’t know this. That’s how he got the nickname, Francesco. His real name is Giovanni Batista Bernadone.

He was the first Italian poet and song writer.

I did not know that! Fascinating stuff you share, Brother.

 

[JReducation]

I did not know that! Fascinating stuff you share, Brother.

The order was originally known as the Fratres Minores. Frater in French is Frere. When they went to England they mispronounced Frere and came out with Friar. You will often hear us refer to ourselves as friars, meaning the brothers.

 

[FreciaMarie]

I have learned so much about Orders, simply by reading your posts, Brother. I love it. (I’ve been reading all over CAF for the last couple of years, but only recently created a profile. I have always loved and appreciated your posts. I always learn something, when reading them.)

 

[Usige]

It had nothing to do with the Dominicans. Francis and Clare wanted one family of brothers and sisters. The trend of the time was to have parallel communities.

I doubted it had anything to do with Dominicans *. Really the Dominican that taught me Chant and the Divine Office made a number of off hand jokes about various orders. Since I had just been received into the Church a couple month before most didn’t make sense as I was unaware of the differences and historic interplay between the orders. Most of it is still a mystery to me.

Francis and Clare wanted the entire family, religious and seculars, ordained and non ordained, to pray together.

It was also a Benedictine custom that those who could not chant, even if they could read Latin, were considered not to have a vocation to the monastic life. They were admitted as lay brothers, but not as choir monks. This reduced the lay brothers to a lower class, often times considered less intelligent and less talented.

In the Franciscan tradition, such a distinction only served to inflate the ego of those who could read and chant. This was to be avoided.

Finally, the male Franciscans were not to make any distinctions between priests, brothers and laity. Everyone was called Brother, be he a priest, a brother or a layman. Only Francis and his successors were called Father. To follow Dominic’s model would be to created a friar who would be different from his confreres who were not ordained.

…

There is no big mystery here and nothing against Gregorian Chant. It was an attempt to preserve collegiality. Franciscans adopted it from the College of the Apostles, meaning “equals under one father”. Hence the term “the Apostolic Life”.

Brother JR, as always thank you for your answers. So in essence it was not the language or type of chant, but rather that it had served in other communities to stratify the members.

As a related question. Many people say that St. Francis had an issue with Latin. Did the Franciscan liturgy use Latin? Just trying to lay to rest what St. Francis did or didn’t do, and the reason why he did certain things.

As always I appreciate your time to answer oddball questions.*

 

[JReducation]

I doubted it had anything to do with Dominicans *. *

We’re only a year apart in age.

As a related question. Many people say that St. Francis had an issue with Latin. Did the Franciscan liturgy use Latin? Just trying to lay to rest what St. Francis did or didn’t do, and the reason why he did certain things.

 

[dominic_aquinas]

Thank you Brother for sharing your knowledge of the Franciscans with us!

However, there is one thing that you mentioned that I don’t quite understand. You said, "Francis did write some hymns in Italian. Other friars also wrote other hymns in the local languages, not to mention some Latin hymns such as Pange Lingua, which is not Gregorian chant. "

I’m confused, I though St. Thomas Aquinas, not a Franciscan Friar, composed the words to “Pange Lingua” which I believe was traditionally sung to Mode III of Gregorian Chant. I read this on a wikipedia page and listened to their song sample and it’s exactly how I remember it being sung in Church. Doesn’t that make it Gregorian Chant? I’m probably just misunderstanding something here.

 

[bslorence]

We use plain chant, which is neither polyphony nor Gregorian chant.

Can you elaborate a bit on your distinction between plain chant and Gregorian chant? From this and other posts in this thread it sounds like your definition of Gregorian chant is pretty specific, whereas I think the average Joe hears the term and imagines something fairly general – and would certainly include Latin hymns like Pange Lingua in that general category.

 

[opus101]

We use plain chant, which is neither polyphony nor Gregorian chant.

Gregorian chant is plainchant.

Latin hymns such as Pange Lingua, which is not Gregorian chant.

The Pange Lingua hymn was set to Gregorian chant.

When you say that these things are not Gregorian chant, exactly what do you mean? Are you referring to the fact that chant had not been totally codified by the time they were composed? I don’t understand exactly what you are trying to say.

 

[JReducation]

Can you elaborate a bit on your distinction between plain chant and Gregorian chant? From this and other posts in this thread it sounds like your definition of Gregorian chant is pretty specific, whereas I think the average Joe hears the term and imagines something fairly general – and would certainly include Latin hymns like Pange Lingua in that general category.

Gregorian chant is plainchant.

The Pange Lingua hymn was set to Gregorian chant.

When you say that these things are not Gregorian chant, exactly what do you mean? Are you referring to the fact that chant had not been totally codified by the time they were composed? I don’t understand exactly what you are trying to say.

I think an example would be more helpful. Think of the monks chanting the Divine Office.

Like this.

Franciscans don’t do this kind of chant.

Or think of a mass like this.

Whereas something like Pange Lingua like this, friars did sing. It was easier to sing. Probably because you’re helped by the organ and it does not have to be done in choir.

Or other classics like Immaculate Mary, Franciscans would call plain chant, because it’s not as elaborate as the choral office or the mass parts.

We must also remember that many of these hymns did not exist in Francis’ and Clare’s day. Most of the hymns used by the friars and the nuns were contemporary compositions, which for us are now 800 years old. Pange Lingua came after St. Francis’ was dead. Maybe, just maybe there’s a slight chance that Clare may have heard it. I’m not sure what year Thomas wrote it. If it was later in his life, she would have been dead by then.

Hymns were added to the “Franciscan repertoire” over the years by the chapters. The idea of an entire mass or the Divine Office chanted as the examples that I provided above, is a novelty to Franciscans. To the best of my knowledge, the only Franciscans who have papal permission to use that form of music for the mass and Divine Office are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. It takes an act of the chapter approved by the Holy See for Franciscans to get around the mandates of Francis and Clare.

What many people don’t know is that Francis and Clare wanted to make sure that the rule was observed without gloss. They got Pope Honorius and Pope Gregory to write bulls that decreed that no one could enact any law contrary to what was in the rule, nor could anyone add any statute that was not in the rule. Since this was signed and sealed by the founders and the popes, only the pope can approve it. The chapter votes on it, but it has to go to the Holy See for approval. I believe that only the FI have this permission. Even the FI have it on condition that it is pastorally appropriate. A superior can rule that it’s not pastorally appropriate for his house.

Franciscan superiors are rather interesting. As long as they govern according to the rule and constitutions their voice is unquestionable no matter how much one may think that they are being unreasonable. This is based on Francis’ command that he be obeyed as if one were a corpse in his hands and that the brothers and sisters obey his successors as if they were him.

The question is not just about what kind of chant or how much chant, but who the superior is and what the superior allows along with what does the chapter allow. Our lives are kept simple by keeping all the thinking in the hands of a few.

 

[october_baby]

I think an example would be more helpful. Think of the monks chanting the Divine Office.

Like this.

Franciscans don’t do this kind of chant.

Or think of a mass like this.

Whereas something like Pange Lingua like this, friars did sing. It was easier to sing. Probably because you’re helped by the organ and it does not have to be done in choir.

Or other classics like Immaculate Mary, Franciscans would call plain chant, because it’s not as elaborate as the choral office or the mass parts.

We must also remember that many of these hymns did not exist in Francis’ and Clare’s day. Most of the hymns used by the friars and the nuns were contemporary compositions, which for us are now 800 years old. Pange Lingua came after St. Francis’ was dead. Maybe, just maybe there’s a slight chance that Clare may have heard it. I’m not sure what year Thomas wrote it. If it was later in his life, she would have been dead by then.

Hymns were added to the “Franciscan repertoire” over the years by the chapters. The idea of an entire mass or the Divine Office chanted as the examples that I provided above, is a novelty to Franciscans. To the best of my knowledge, the only Franciscans who have papal permission to use that form of music for the mass and Divine Office are the Franciscans of the Immaculate. It takes an act of the chapter approved by the Holy See for Franciscans to get around the mandates of Francis and Clare.

What many people don’t know is that Francis and Clare wanted to make sure that the rule was observed without gloss. They got Pope Honorius and Pope Gregory to write bulls that decreed that no one could enact any law contrary to what was in the rule, nor could anyone add any statute that was not in the rule. Since this was signed and sealed by the founders and the popes, only the pope can approve it. The chapter votes on it, but it has to go to the Holy See for approval. I believe that only the FI have this permission. Even the FI have it on condition that it is pastorally appropriate. A superior can rule that it’s not pastorally appropriate for his house.

Franciscan superiors are rather interesting. As long as they govern according to the rule and constitutions their voice is unquestionable no matter how much one may think that they are being unreasonable. This is based on Francis’ command that he be obeyed as if one were a corpse in his hands and that the brothers and sisters obey his successors as if they were him.

The question is not just about what kind of chant or how much chant, but who the superior is and what the superior allows along with what does the chapter allow. Our lives are kept simple by keeping all the thinking in the hands of a few.

Thank you brother, very informative!

 

[dominic_aquinas]

I think an example would be more helpful. Think of the monks chanting the Divine Office.

…

Thank you Brother! The examples really help! They are extremely beautiful as well.

 

[bslorence]

I’m still confused. Did the early Friars Minor not sing their mass and office? Or if they did sing them, did they compose newer, simpler settings of the mass ordinary and propers than what monks and canons would have been using at the time in the area around Assisi?

I don’t know how much of that latter is even well-understood, since the Roman Rite was not standardized until a few centuries later. But in any case this thread makes me wonder where a book like the 1924 Graduale Romano-Seraphicum fits into it all.

It is essentially a supplement to the Roman Gradual and it provides proper chants (often very ornate) for masses on the feasts of Franciscan saints. The fact that the book exists at all suggests that by 1924 at least, Gregorian chant was alive and well in some quarters of the Franciscan world.

 

[JReducation]

I’m still confused. Did the early Friars Minor not sing their mass and office? Or if they did sing them, did they compose newer, simpler settings of the mass ordinary and propers than what monks and canons would have been using at the time in the area around Assisi?

I don’t know how much of that latter is even well-understood, since the Roman Rite was not standardized until a few centuries later. But in any case this thread makes me wonder where a book like the 1924 Graduale Romano-Seraphicum fits into it all.

It is essentially a supplement to the Roman Gradual and it provides proper chants (often very ornate) for masses on the feasts of Franciscan saints. The fact that the book exists at all suggests that by 1924 at least, Gregorian chant was alive and well in some quarters of the Franciscan world.

Where did you find the gradual book? Did you scan it? There are very few good copies of it left and they’re locked in libraries. Librarians guard them with their lives. We’re luck if we can look at one through a glass pane. Thanks for posting it. I have not seen one in many years.

OK, now that the excitement is over . . . to answer your question.

There was a missal that was promulgated in 1924, known as the Seraphic Missal to which the Gradual Book is an addendum. The reason for the gradual book was two-fold:

a) The Roman Calendar and the Franciscan Calendar were not aligned. They’re still not aligned. The Seraphic Missal was created and the gradual book was added for the purpose of what today we call Franciscan Solemnities, such as the Solemnity of the Stigmata, Solemnity of St. Clare, Solemnity of St. Francis, and others.

b) The Seraphic Missal followed the Franciscan tradition of simplicity in music. The chants were very similar to what you would hear today at a Sunday mass at your parish when the priest chants certain parts of the mass, nothing as fancy as you would hear at a Benedictine Abbey or a diocesan seminary. There was the idea of celebrating the great Franciscan solemnities with greater pomp or what to a Franciscan would be more pomp and circumstance. Probably to a Benedictine, it would be the daily bread. With the permission of the Holy See, these chants were introduced in the gradual book. That’s the only time when they were used.

Here lies the difference between the Friars Minor of the 13th century and the other religious of that time, including the Dominicans who are our contemporaries. The mass of the Franciscans was very austere.

The term austere has to be understood correctly. This is where people today go wrong. Austere does not mean sloppy. Austere means that you have the basics and just the basics. But you do them well. The vestments, altar linens and all of the vessels, etc were well cared for and exceedingly clean. That sounds like common sense to us. From what I’ve read, it was not so in the 13th century, which would explain why Francis would write about the importance of keeping all the sacred spaces, vestments, linens and vessels in special care. Why else would he write it, if it was being done?

However, there were two peculiarities to Franciscans.

Peculiarity # 1: The Divine Office never had music. It was always read, not matter how big the holy day. This included Easter and Christmas and it’s still so to this day.

Peculiarity # 2: The parts of the mass that were to be chanted could not be chanted by a schola. Scholas were prohibited. The entire community chanted the part of the people and the priest and deacon did their parts. In order for the community to chant, as not everyone can sing, the chants were simplified. Some were almost recto-tonal. We (Franciscans) refer to this as plainchant. Of course there were hymns of adoration and praise at the appropriate times during the mass such as at Holy Communion. These hymns were often sung in the local languages. This does not mean that no Latin hymn was used. That’s another mistake often made. There were Latin hymns by virtue of the fact that they were still being written long after the death of Francis and Clare. Latin had nothing to do with it. It was all about style. The style had to be simple enough so that everyone could sing. If it was too difficult, then it was not used.

There is substance behind this reasoning. Francis and Clare wanted to protect the unity between the lay and the clerical, the secular and the religious. Remember that originally the Franciscan order was one family made up of three orders. They were much smaller than they are today. They functioned as a cohesive unit. We didn’t have the priests, lay brothers, nuns, lay sisters, and other laity. That language did not exist in the Franciscan family. It was important to keep the music at mass as simple as possible so that the entire family could participate. Everyone was brother or sister, that simple.

The Divine Office did not require music. There was never a liturgical law that governed the office as there is today. The music in the Divine Office was simply abandoned by Francis and later prohibited by St. Clare. It was not until Vatican II that music was introduced into the Divine Office in Franciscan houses. Prior to Vatican II, any use of music had to be approved by Rome. Today, there is a little more wiggle room, just a tad.

It was not a mass devoid of all music, but a mass with very simple music that everyone could sing. If it required a schola, it was not used.

 

[bslorence]

Thanks for the lengthy explanation! I found that Gradual on the Chant Books page of the Church Music Association of America. Great organization and website.

I think in general musical circles ‘plainchant’ has a much broader meaning – it just refers, more or less, to monophonic unaccompanied singing without a regular meter. In this sense, Gregorian Chant is one style of plainchant, alongside other styles like Ambrosian, Old Roman, and perhaps even non-Western styles.

Within the Gregorian repertoire (i.e., the music found in the liturgical books of the Roman Rite and its regional and religious variants), there are lots of settings that would count as “plainchant” in the Franciscan sense. And lots that wouldn’t because they’re really only suitable for singing by professionals (counting monks as professionals).

 

[HelenRose]

When I first learned to pray the divine office I was taught to do so by a Dominican priest. Having learned from a Dominican I was taught to chant the hours rather than simply reciting them. I remember he made a joke about how Franciscans never chant because they want to get back to work and Benedictines never stop (or something similar).

So I know that St Francis banned Gregorian chant, but I can’t find any explanation of why he did so. Sts. Francis and Dominic were contemporaries and I’ve always heard stories (legends) of them trading belts/cords upon meeting so it can’t be just a separation of the times in which they lived. So why did St Francis ban it when St Dominic (or his children) embraced it so readily? Was there a theological reason, some reason he believed it somehow harmed the community, or did St. Francis simply dislike it?

Has he banned it or simply will not use for his own Masses?

 

[Rich_C]

St. Francis and the friars were men of the people, closely associated with ordinary, everyday man. He encouraged the friars to sing very simple songs in the vernacular.

-Tim-

I think we have to remember that the Chant versus folk songs argument we have about the Novus Ordo Mass was just a non-issue with the old Mass.

Here’s why:
In the OF, to have all those hymns or folk songs, you have to actually remove proper prayers from the Mass and replace them. On the other hand, chanting the Mass means praying those prayers word for word in chant.

In the old Latin Mass, you’re not allowed to omit propers and replace them with other musical settings, so if St. Francis cut chant out of the Mass, it means he cut most of the music out altogether and simply spoke those proper prayers. They could add hymns before and after Mass, and maybe at the offertory, but that’s about it.

Just a thought.

 

[JReducation]

I think we have to remember that the Chant versus folk songs argument we have about the Novus Ordo Mass was just a non-issue with the old Mass.

Here’s why:
In the OF, to have all those hymns or folk songs, you have to actually remove proper prayers from the Mass and replace them. On the other hand, chanting the Mass means praying those prayers word for word in chant.

In the old Latin Mass, you’re not allowed to omit propers and replace them with other musical settings, so if St. Francis cut chant out of the Mass, it means he cut most of the music out altogether and simply spoke those proper prayers. They could add hymns before and after Mass, and maybe at the offertory, but that’s about it.

Just a thought.

Not quite. The rubrics were not that stringent back then. That’s first.

Second, a superior general of an exempt order is an ordinary.

Third, exempt superior general have certain prerogatives when it comes to the liturgy celebrated by their men. Francis was an exempt superior general.

Finally, one of those prerogatives was to edit out parts of the mass. Even after the decree of Pope Pius V, the Franciscans, Benedictines and later the Jesuits would always have those freedoms. They were never bound to the Mass of Pius V. It was not prohibited to them. It simply was not imposed on them either. They could continue to use the older form and the rules given by the superiors and the abbots. The only requirement then and today is that those rules be approved by the Holy See.

We must remember that they did have what to them would have been folk songs. Francis wrote many of them himself. To us they’re classics, but not to the people of the time. They were called Laudas. It’s a song of praise using secular music of the day, which was more quiet than our secular music today. The Canticle of Brother Sun is the most famous one. But there are others among the writing of St. Francis. Thank God.

 

[opus101]

Thanks for the lengthy explanation! I found that Gradual on the Chant Books page of the Church Music Association of America. Great organization and website.

I think in general musical circles ‘plainchant’ has a much broader meaning – it just refers, more or less, to monophonic unaccompanied singing without a regular meter. In this sense, Gregorian Chant is one style of plainchant, alongside other styles like Ambrosian, Old Roman, and perhaps even non-Western styles.

Within the Gregorian repertoire (i.e., the music found in the liturgical books of the Roman Rite and its regional and religious variants), there are lots of settings that would count as “plainchant” in the Franciscan sense. And lots that wouldn’t because they’re really only suitable for singing by professionals (counting monks as professionals).

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Question answered

CLOSED