First we had a discussion here a while back where many rejected the idea that parish music directors engage in "lay ministry." This isn't "ministry," they opined.

Now, many here are saying "the music director need not even be Catholic, as long as he wants to do the 'right' kind of music," and this position logically follows the earlier position taken that this is really just a job as a musician, and is in no way "ministry."

So ... would you rather have mass celebrated by a Catholic priest who was formed in the 60's and still fully embraces all that he had been taught, or by a very conservative, high-church Anglican priest?

The music director should be Catholic. And I'll take a Catholic who prefers on Eagles' Wings over a non-Catholic who prefers chant any day of the week.

A very tough choice, Paix!
I, as one who believes ardently that a choirmaster-organist and his or her choristers are performing a ministry with a direct link in lineage to the hereditary Jewish temple musicians of the house of Levi, have trouble with the choices which you present, and of the 'reality' of choices which define our present liturgical predicament. Without question, a high-church Anglican would be a more truly Catholic choirmaster than his/her sacro-folk-pop-rock 'Catholic' counterpart. His or her ministry would result in the truest expression of Catholic ethos and theology in music. It is a calumny that we live in a world in which our choice is between such a person, and the nominally Catholic sacro-pop-folk-rock musician whose knowledge of liturgy is defined by the latest pap from the most trendy 'liturgists' and to whom genuine sacred music is actually strange, foreign and perceivedly archaic 'stuff'. If that choice were all that was offered me, I would choose the non-Catholic Catholic over the un-Catholic Catholic any day.

Now, to your other offering: while painful, it is in a different class by virtue of the necessity of licit orders to perform a sacerdotal act. An Anglican priest, whether high, low, Oxford Movement, Anglo-Catholic or not, obviously has no such licit 'orders'. The 'Catholic' priest (but by virtue of the outcome of the Donatist controversy [and the too-convenient doctrine of ex opere operato]) does. This is a bitter reality. Bitter because one would no doubt receive a more genuinely Catholic ministry from the high-church Anglican than one would from Fr Hippy, or Fr Ed Sullivan; but, because of the necessity of ordination from a licit lineage, we would have to suffer under Fr Hippy or Fr Ed Sullivan. Fortunately for us, times are slowly but surely changing for the better, and we may be seeing a new generation of priests who are Catholic in theology, Catholic in worship and prayer, as well as merely in having 'valid orders'.

(A final comment about Anglican orders: they have, since Henrician times, been rather a tangled mess. The actual rite of ordination leaves one in considerable doubt as to whether the ordinand is being ordained to offer sacrifice (which is the distinguishing characteristic of a priest), or whether he is merely being made a 'minister'. Further, there are many lineages of ordination within the Anglican church, some of which are without doubt Catholic and valid, whilst many (very many) others unquestionably are not. Some stem from reformation era bishops who intended the very same priestly ordinations that they had conferred before Henry the Bad did his work, from various 'Old Catholic' bishops, others from the Orthodox, others from Polish National Catholic or Philippine Catholic bishops, and so on. Some were ordained by Anglican bishops who were without doubt spiritual Catholics who intended to give Catholic priestly orders to their ordinands, while others, sadly, had no such intention. In short the many efforts to save and maintain the true Catholic faith within Anglicanism is a sad story whose final chapter has been the seeming victory of the denizens of liberal chic polity in the last sixty years (though one hastens to sing Te Deum and Deo gratias for the Anglican ordinariates of Our Lady of Walsingham and of the Chair of St Peter!). At their very best, true Anglo-Catholics saw no difference between themselves and the very nationalistic (and culturalistic) Orthodox of the eastern realms. And they dared to think that the day would dawn that saw the same rapprochment with Rome that we hope for with our eastern brethren. Alas, it is becoming clearer by the day that such a rapprochment will never take place. We should all weep for what might have been.)

I agree with Jackson about the confused state of Anglican orders. There was an Episcopal priest in my town some years ago who went somewhere in Syria and had himself re-ordained by an Orthodox bishop. Now why he stayed in ECUSA when he obviously didn't accept their orders is beyond me.

The Orthodox have a slightly different view of orders. They don't really accept that once a man is ordained, he stays ordained forever regardless. They see the validity of orders as coming from the union of the ordaining bishop with the Church. If a priest is cut off from his bishop and the lawful jurisdiction of the Church, his orders are no longer valid.

Eagles wings: I had a hymnal publisher tell me recently that because it was requested in funerals so often, it would be difficult for a publisher to offer a Catholic hymnal without including it.

Jackson, I quote from the OCA website (Orthodox Church in America).

The priests in the Church are assigned by the bishop and belong to the specific congregations which they serve. No one receives the gift of the priesthood personally or individually. Apart from his bishop and his own particular parish community, the priest has no “powers” and, indeed, no services to perform. Thus, on the altar table of each Christian community headed by the priest as pastor, there is the cloth called the antimension signed by the bishop which is the permission to the community to gather and to act as the Church of God. Without the antimension, the priest and his people cannot function legitimately, and the actions of the assembly cannot be considered as being authentically “of the Church.”

There is much more info at:

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders

And I'll take a Catholic who prefers [@# &#%^(@'s **%#&s] over a non-Catholic who prefers chant any day of the week.

Anglo-Catholics have long thought that one doesn't have to be 'Cath'lic' to be Catholic. Well, those of us who crossed the Tiber have learnt a few things. Still, you may have your un-Catholic Catholic. I would, if necessary, embrace my non-Catholic catholic and would have actual Catholic worship, genuinely Catholic musical spirituality and its benefits, while you didn't. ('Romans' have a few things to learn, too! Quite a few, really.)

Here is how I am thinking about it.

Musica Sacram 13. Liturgical services are celebrations of the Church, that is, of the holy people, united under and directed by the bishop or priest.[10] The priest and his ministers, because of the sacred order they have received, hold a special place in these celebrations, as do also—by reason of the ministry they perform—the servers, readers, commentators and those in the choir.[11]

Ecumenical directory 1993
126. Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic churches.
133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.

Those in the choir (presumably including its director, organist etc.) are ministers - see Musica Sacram above.
Although this ministry was at one time reserved to clerics, (see Tra le solicitudini) it is not now so reserved, similar to the use of lay ministers as servers readers etc. The ministry flows from the character of sacramental baptism, not from Holy Orders. Lay women may be included. (Unless the ministry is exercised as a stable instituted ministry, such as lector and acolyte. This stability moves its closer to it original clerical designation, and so it is back to men only.)

Can a non -Catholic minister at the Eucharist in anyway?
I cannot find this specifically treated but feel the parallel should be drawn between ministering as a reader and as choir - as Properly speaking (if you will pardon the pun) these involve the proclamation of scripture (and of course the reading may be sung).
An Eastern Christian as a member of a rite which retains valid Orders and Eucharist, is given permission to read at Mass - See above Ecumenical Directory. Later in the same document other validly baptised Christians are given permission to do so on exceptional occasions and for a just cause.
I would interpret this as meaning that an Eastern Christian may minister in a regular way as a choir member/director, but another Christian only exceptionally and that with special permission. So you could employ an Eastern Christian choir director on a regular basis but not another Christian.
And a non-Christian - never.

This does not preclude other Christians singing in the congregation, as this is not singing in a ministerial way.

Although this ministry was at one time reserved to clerics, (see Tra le solicitudini) it is not now so reserved,

Then negates this:

The priest and his ministers, because of the sacred order they have received, hold a special place in these celebrations, as do also—by reason of the ministry they perform—the servers, readers, commentators and those in the choir.

All musicians should be Catholics and even have animals willing to eat fish on Fridays. Holy Meow! Organists must have two functioning legs so that pedal notes both above and below pedal middle "C" can be heard by the faithful. Cantors are ministers of the holy microphone and must approach pitch with no more than a near miss. Melismatic passages must be sung with enough warble to rival the finest of Swiss Alp yodelers. Ministers must wear enough choir attire to cover bare midriffs and tattoos with only sequined sneakers peeking demurely from underneath the holy hems. Horned helmets must be checked before mass to prevent injury to the assembly.