FWIW, if you go with SC and the GIRM as your main references, the picture you get is this: the Church desires that the Proper and Ordinary of the Mass be sung, preferably in Latin, and through the medium of Gregorian chant, as has been handed down to us over the centuries. This is taking all the first options from the GIRM regarding the Entrance Procession, the Offertory Procession, and the Communion Procession. SC mentions that the faithful should be able to sing parts of the Ordinary (better if it was all, in my view) in Latin. It specifically mentions that, as you have probably already read.

If you are promoting the fully sung Mass, complete with Proper and Ordinary sung, then you are already advocating what's in the mind of the Church. This is clear in the documents that She has given to us over the past few decades, especially SC and GIRM. I consider MS and SttL (especially the latter) to be secondary to SC and the GIRM. (This is all for the OF, as the EF is much clearer in what is required, and choice doesn't come into play nearly as much).

As to refutation of whatever SttL says, I'm not sure I can help you with that right now, as I don't know the document well enough to surmise which passage may have been used in the argument against you. One of my wiser colleagues on the forum may have additional information for you. (I'm really hoping that they chime in and reply to your post: many of them probably have wonderful insights for you).

Thank you for taking up our cross with us. We need more priests like yourself who appreciate Sacred Music and the Tradition and patrimony of the Church. God bless you and welcome to the forum!

Father,

I am far from an expert on these matters, but I have had the experience, recently, of helping a priest think through the merits of his chanting many parts of the mass, against the wishes of some complaining parishioners (but very much appreciated by others). That's not exactly the issue you are facing, but not dissimilar either. So the issue of how to explain these matters is front of my mind. Again, I'm no expert.

I certainly would agree that SC and GIRM should take precedence over STTL. Indeed, given the status of STTL, as was mentioned, it seems that there could be no real question on that matter.

But it sounds like you are more or less familiar with those documents (and gaining familiarity is easy, in any case). I take it that you are also struggling with the issue of how one might characterize or identify truly sacred music as opposed to secular or even religious but not liturgically appropriate music. To a certain extent I think that you have to rely on the judgment of musical experts -- however (and this is a crucial caveat!), if said 'experts' cannot explain their judgements to you, by way of reference to Church teachings, then you should be very suspicious. My 2c.

At the same time, there are some rules of thumb that I think can be fairly easily understood by anybody, non-musicians alike. I'll try to articulate some of them, in no particular order, and making no pretense that they are equally important, and certainly not exhaustive.

These are my own principles (which is not to say that I made them up, but only that I claim no authority for them other than that they help me think more clearly), and are certainly fallible, debatable, etc. I offer them for your consideration, not, I say one last time, as an expert in these matters. These principles are closely connected with one another, and could probably be summed up in some pithy phrase, if only I were pithy.

1. Sacred music should turn one's mind to worship, celebration (of the right things!), and prayer -- the things that we are supposed to be doing when the priest offers mass. Therefore, music that inevitably recalls to mind the secular (much less the profane) is not sacred. A consequence is that music whose style is taken from secular music is not sacred. Broadway music is fun (for some...not me), jazz is wonderful, folks songs are...folksy. When we hear such music in church, our minds (sometimes perhaps subtly) are directed not towards God or Our Lord but towards Broadway musicals, cool jazz clubs, and campfires. (We don't have to think explicitly of campfires and jamborees for our minds to be pointed in that direction.)

2. Sacred music enhances rather than distracts from what is happening and from what we are supposed to be doing. It is never about the music per se. Music that calls attention to itself is distracting. This principle has several implications, among them:

(i) Instruments matter. Some instruments 'command' one's attention in ways that others do not. Cymbals come to mind.

(ii) Music that is appropriate for one part of the mass might not be appropriate for another part. In some parts of the mass (e.g., the Gloria), what is being sung is at center stage, and for those parts, a certain kind of 'calling of attention' to it is appropriate (not the kind that says "listen to the amazing way that I can jump octaves with my voice" or "be amazed as I play scales faster than a speeding bullet", but the kind that says "listen to these words; they are important and beautiful"). At other times, the music is very much in a secondary (or tertiary) role, and should be chosen accordingly.

(iii) Some music is never appropriate, because it is designed to call attention to the one 'performing' it. This sort of music can be very exciting in the concert hall, jazz club, or stage, and there is something wonderful about witnessing a truly talented musician play or sing fantastically difficult passages in a musical way, but not as part of the mass. (By the way, the music need not be difficult in order to call attention to itself or the musician, nor does difficult music necessarily call attention to itself or the musician.)

3. Sacred music should not pander to the basest parts of us, but strive to elevate us. It is quite easy to play a sequence of sounds that is satisfying. I demonstrate this to my students all the time. Just do this: Play a major triad for a few beats, add the 7th for a few beats. Wait a couple of seconds. Everybody in the room is dying to hear the triad again, and feels 'satisfied' when they do. There is, alas, a lot of music written for the church that follows something like this model. It is just about the shortest musical journey that has a beginning, middle, and end. There are occasions, even in sacred music, when a short journey is merited. But most of the thoughts that are being expressed during the mass are not so simple, and the music should reflect that fact. There is nothing wrong with pausing here and there on a nice major triad, of course. The point is only that sometimes we should trust that people can follow a longer or more complex journey to that conclusion.

To illustrate the point, let's quickly compare the cadence-points of two pieces of music. First, 'City of God'. (I know, it's like shooting fish in a barrel...) The chord structure is: E, F#m/E, B/E, E. This structure repeats ad nauseum through the verses. (The chorus is slightly different, no better.) Notice two things. First, it 'gives us what we want' (an E major chord) very quickly, repeatedly, and in the same way every time. Second, it never really even completely takes it away, because there is an E in the base of every one of these chords. That's a cool, toe-tapping, thing to do in a pop song. Not so much in church music. People are capable of listening to better. For a 'fair' comparison I'll pick a traditional chant that is basically in a familiar major key and is quite short and simple -- Salve Regina. (I'll assume it's chanted with E as the root ('do') to make the comparison easy.) The musical pauses occur (on one reading, at least) as follows (with '|' marking a major cadence point)

B B F# E | B B | G# B E | E B A B E | E B B G# E | E B A B E

So yes, we get that satisfying E (most of the time), but we get there in different ways each time, and generally more slowly.


4. Words are important. The lyrics of sacred music should be...sacred. At a minimum, they should be consistent with Catholic theology, but presumably much more is desired.

Compare the lyrics of the two songs I just mentioned. One says that we are sons of the morning (whatever that means) and exhorts us to 'build the City of God', which sounds vaguely hubristic. The other, well, you know what it says. Moreover, the music of Salve Regina is crafted to fit the text, and thereby elevates the text. One gets the distinct impression in the former (and in much non-sacred 'religious' music) that the text is just fine so long as it (sort of) fits the meter of the song.

Anyway, those are some thoughts. I hope that they are helpful to somebody.

Father,

Welcome to the forum.

I wouldn't start with Sing to the Lord, or Music in Catholic Worship, or even Sacrosanctum Concilium or GIRM. Avoid arguments based on pre- or post- conciliar ideas, OF or EF. Instead, use older (or even much older) documents. I have a book called Papal Legislation on Sacred Music, which presents some very important ideas which have guided the Church for centuries.

^^ Thanks for pointing that out. ^^

This statement is very telling indeed:

The most virulent criticisms of the article center around the pronoun “I”.

Dear Dad!

And "sacred music" is written with 'sacred text,' not paraphrases thereof. The texts of the Mass are considered 'sacred' as are all the texts of the Bible. No other music is "sacred." It might be good stuff, or contribute to pious sentiments. But it ain't sacred.

What do we then do with texts such as "Phos Hilaron"....."O magnum mysterium"..."Anima Christi".....etc.?

The excellent four part series of articles written by His Excellency, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix articulates sacred music so well:
http://www.adoremus.org/0512SingingtheMass.html

There is also the document penned by Archbishop Sample while he was in Michigan.

The injection of the subjective as the principal criterion by which many have come to evaluate their appreciation of the liturgy has led precisely to the idea that, because I like it, it must be right. A predilection for Gregorian chant, Latin, or the treasury of sacred music is then demoted from its status of connaturality with the Roman liturgy, which is supported by Sacrosanctum concilium and Musicam sacram, to a mere option in exercising one’s preference.

The above is a passage from Fr. Smith's article, referenced by Chonak.

I've been saying that for a couple of years now: the Mass is not about personal preference. The mere fact that as a DM I had to choose the music at all implies that the music was not really serving the liturgy, but serving the "congregation" or "the people," or even catering to my preferences or the Pastor's. The existence of options is the problem, for as soon as you have an option, your preference for which option you choose, for whatever reason, becomes a factor.

"Spirit of the the Liturgy" (Ratzinger) - - worth at least a look. Lots of discussion on this forum about Benedict and his thoughts on the liturgy:

http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/3873/liturgy-and-church-music-by-cardinal-ratzinger-now-pope-benedict/p1

Settings of texts from the Divine Office can also be Sacred Music, as are music setting texts from the Eastern Divine Liturgies.

A setting of Phos hilaron (from the Greek 'Vespers') can be Sacred Music, as could O Magnum Mysterium (from Christmas Matins), Anima Christi, as well. The sole difference lies in that the first two are Liturgical texts, the last Devotional. As far as whether the Music is Sacred, that does not depend solely on the text: It depends also on the music itself, and if it conforms to the requirements of Sacred Music set forth in Tra le Sollecitudini.

O Magnum Mysterium (in Latin) set as a polka would not be Sacred Music, even though it sets a Liturgical text. Omnes de Saba veniet (Gradual of Epiphany) set as a Country and Western tune would not be Sacred Music either.

Epic, Aristotle, simply epic.

Susan Benofy wrote "Buried Treasure", a series of articles on the Church's 20th-century music documents, when she was research director for Adoremus; you can find them on the Adoremus web site.

But 'O Magnum' sung during the Offertory (the proper has already been sung) at Midnight Mass is still Sacred Music

Like I said: the texts of the Mass constitute the necessary and sufficient basis for sacred music, whether motet or chant. Bruckner's Graduals are 'sacred music'--they use the text of the Mass.

.

If it is any help, I have found it helpful to introduce the idea of three divisions - sacred, religious and profane.( Profane obviously is all that good music about other things, like our traditional Irish ballads for example, not profane in the style of gangster rap.)
Then I talk about 'music we would use at the prayer meeting, on processions, at home for evening prayer or prayer with children, etc... this is religious music.
Sacred music is music which is part of the Sacred liturgy... texts given in the graduale, music from the graduale or simplified forms of it. When we can't sing our sacred music the alius cantus allows us to sing religious music (hymns) but the preference would be to be able to sing Sacred, not just religious music.
I find that gets people thinking past the back and whiteness of 'you just don't like my sort of music' to different music for different things.
Then I talk about how mostly the graduale is a meditation on scripture, and ask 'how would you feel if the reader got up to read and said that instead of the reading from the bible he was going to read a nice religious poem which he liked? Most people immediately see there would be a problem with that. Then I point out that that is essentially what we are doing in substituting hymns for propers. And that this is what taking the role of the music minister seriously means.

In case it wasn't clear to anyone...

Phew. For a moment there I thought we were all just supposed to make up our own definition.

Read the Papal Legislation on Sacred Music and you will get the entire picture before VII.