Straw man argument

Thank you, and it was intended as such. It was also intended to be a warning as to how far this argument, and any argument regarding documents by dead people from a century ago, can go. (Whether it is orchestral Masses, or women singing in the choir, or whatever.)

Tra le is a wonderful document, but it needs to be read in its proper context, not in a vacuum, and also taking into account subsequent legislation and continuing praxis, otherwise it is used as a WMD, fired about at unsuspecting and unknowing people who take this relatively minor legislative document as Gospel. Tra le can be dangerous.

I have to ask, however: You "see no reason for their revival, now or ever" based on your taste, your reading of this document, and Sir Richard Terry's writing; I see the some good reasons for a very careful revival of some of the best of these works, based on my taste, my reading of this and subsequent documents, and Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's writing; what makes your opinion on this better than mine, or mine better than yours? Could it be, possibly, that both opinions are equally (in)valid?

regarding the "Sanctus," I can only think of one hand full of settings that meet my criteria regarding the metaphysical aspects of a conjoined choir between heaven and earth, and the Faure is at the top of that list, IMO

Yah, but Wolfie's Sanctus from "Coronation" is better. Is so. Is so.

There's stuff that you can use, but you must be selective. The Bruckner Cecilian motets would be an example

And not his E minor Mass?

Salieri's right. He believes in the hermeneutic of continuity. What Pio X wrote was accurate and remains valuable: the music should be 'holy, beautiful, and universal' and elevate the minds and hearts of the faithful to God.

I'm sure you know that one recent Pope also banned 'concerts' in church buildings. A good friend of mine, very knowledgeable in Roman affairs, told me that that particular ban was written for churches in the Diocese of Rome which had a serious problem (at the time) with very undesirable practices surrounding those "events."

However, the language is clear: NO CONCERTS IN CHURCHES. That will come as a very big surprise to almost every Bishop in the West.

Concerts in churches... a real problem... Jesus should NEVER be removed from his throne so the children can play non-sacred (sometimes unholy? sometimes secular?) works. Religious music that parallels a devotion might be different, but it should be seen as a devotion with music.

Orchestral masses. An aberration to the central focus. Sacrifice.

francis - the Congregation for Divine Worship does not agree with you that we should never have concerts in churches. Nor do the popes of the twentieth century. But I am in full agreement that music must be sacred for church concerts. Maybe that's all you are saying - if so, my apologies.

Palestrina - I think you oversimplify the case. And I am not one who advocates for liturgical use of orchestral masses - quite the opposite. The fact that you think the Bruckner E minor mass unsuitable is one example of oversimplification. That mass is more pointedly stile antico than even his Cecilian motets. The head motive from the Sanctus is actually copied from the Palestrina Missa Brevis. The accompaniment is spare and does not include strings (and is essentially a wind-band equivalent of an organ accompaniment as the mass was first performed outdoors). And the Mozart Requiem contains a more pointedly "churchy" approach in its layered polyphonic entrances than much of Mozart. This work and the C minor Mass show the effect of Mozart's interaction with Bach and Renaissance polyphony late in his career. The real question is how Mozart's more polyphonic "serious" church music would have developed had he not died just as he began his forays into the style. One of the great questions of Western music right there. At any rate, not all Mozart or Bruckner is created equal in terms of liturgical suitability or sacred ethos. And I would be very worried with an approach than only accepts neo-Renaissance efforts as suitable for liturgy. Kevin Allen is OK, I suppose, but not James MacMillan...
If that overly conservative mentality were the true measure of the sacred in music, then we would never have had polyphony in the first place, or pipe organs (and there was plenty of push-back when polyphony appeared on the scene so this is not idle speculation).

There is also the question of what 'theatrical' means. Certainly in Mozart's time some similarities would have been more obvious. But more importantly - do his masses sound like any modern theatrical music? Do they carry theatrical connotations for most laypeople today? I highly doubt that. The passage of time and changing cultural context may actually be an argument in favor of those works - in other words, they may be more appropriate and less theatrical today than they were in 18th century Vienna.
As another example, nobody nowdays hears madrigalisms (e.g. dissonance as text painting for words like "anguish" or "die") as a secular or theatrical thing. But there was a time when they were a new influence in the world of Renaissance polyphony.
I suspect that what some consider "theatrical" in a Mozart Mass I would simply call "distracting" (e.g. an overly virtuosic solo line or dramatic thundering of timpani), since there is no real theatrical connotation for these things in our modern culture. I would avoid that piece liturgically because of the distraction, not because it conjures up images from Hollywood or Broadway.

I suspect that what some consider "theatrical" in a Mozart Mass I would simply call "distracting" (e.g. an overly virtuosic solo line or dramatic thundering of timpani), since there is no real theatrical connotation for these things in our modern culture. I would avoid that piece liturgically because of the distraction, not because it conjures up images from Hollywood or Broadway.

Well said. Theatre is theatre, whether it's Mozart or Godspell.

francis - the Congregation for Divine Worship does not agree with you that we should never have concerts in churches. Nor do the popes of the twentieth century. But I am in full agreement that music must be sacred for church concerts. Maybe that's all you are saying - if so, my apologies.

You can't stand behind questionable teaching, even if it comes from the vatican offices. Anything goes this day and age, and nothing is ever corrected, questioned or challenged. JP II was also one of the primary proponents of the Assisi gathering, and I will say no more. Does that mean we should ALSO put statues of the Buddah on top of the tabernacle in all our churches?

Mozart still reeks of opera, I'm afraid.

No. Unfortunately, it is true.

UPDATE:

Just google "assisi, buddha, tabernacle" and you will see pics and read reports