Suggestions in the article sound right to me. It facilitates congregational singing according to the Vatican directives, it allows the choir to receive communion as members of the congregation.

I saw a nice exposition on this subject by Fr. Aloysius Wilmes who said in 1947 during his address at the National Liturgical Week in Portland the following which I think echoes what Dom Johnner has said in his book about the ancient custom of the people singing the Communion antiphon:

"Singing at Communion is especially appropriate, since Communion is at the same time Communion with the Eucharistic Body of Christ and Communion with His Mystical Body, with our neighbors. We do not communicate alone. It is a family meal, the end of which is not only our personal sanctification, but also unity between the members of the Mystical Body. To sing together is a significant and efficacious means of realizing this unity."

Speaking from the EF perspective as I do, I understand that those on the traditional side of things might shudder at the expression "family meal", but it's important not to forget that important aspect of the Holy Eucharist while also emphasizing the sacrificial and sacramental dimensions. If anything, I think a tad bit more convivial-ness and family-ness would not be be amiss in the traditional environments I inhabit.

For several years I have included the notation for the Communion antiphon in our handout and the schola sings several verses while the Holy Eucharist is being distributed.

The EF Communion antiphon seems to be the perfect distillation of the theme of the Mass in a singable and memorable way. It is the quintessential "takeaway" from the Mass.

Perhaps the sacrum convivium can be more clearly understood in eschatological terms as a foretaste of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb, which is not a picnic.

I didn't mean to insinuate anything specific. I thought he was associated with the liturgical reform movement of Msgr. Hillenbrand Hellriegel, but I will be happy to correct my statement. I was just trying to make the point that the preconciliar statements of members of the Liturgical Movement ought to be taken at face value and ought not to be interpreted solely by the light of their later postconciliar convictions.

As to Kathy's proposal, I think it is very sound. I have always been an advocate of singing a psalm (either with the proper communion antiphon or with a more general antiphon) during the communion procession, rather than a metrical hymn or a medley of various things. I do not think its being proposed as "the first step in reforming parish music" has much chance of success in the vast majority of parishes that do not think their music needs reforming (even if it does). So I would steer away from promoting the practice with language that has a negative tone.

Reform | Definition of reform by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform‎
Full Definition of REFORM. transitive verb. 1. a : to put or change into an improved form or condition. b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.

Negative tone? Yes.

Well, Father, I'm so glad that you brought this up because I'm now enjoying reading Volume II of the Collected Works of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, "Theology of the Liturgy".

On p. 536, there is a short chapter entitled, "In memory of Klaus Gamber". In this beautiful chapter Cardinal Ratzinger talks about how a young priest said to him, "Today we need a new Liturgical Movement."

As the Cardinal states, this priest sensed that we "need a beginning from within, as the Liturgical Movement at its best had intended, when it was concerned not about making texts or inventing actions and forms, but rather about the rediscovery of the living heart, about entering into the interior fabric of the liturgy to a new celebration that is shaped from within."

He continues, "The liturgical reform, as it was carried out concretely, distanced itself more and more from this origin. The result was not revival, but devastation."

He says later in the chapter, "What happened to a great extent after the Council has quite a different significance: Instead of the developed liturgy, some have set up their self-made liturgy. They have stepped out of the living process of growing and becoming and gone over to making. They no longer wanted to continue the organic becoming and maturing of something that had been alive down through the centuries, and instead they replaced it----according to the model of technical production----with making, the insipid product of the moment."

Forget everything that I've said above, and my sincere apologies for my wordiness, but I think I've finally reached an understanding of some of these concepts.

Here it is in one sentence why Cardinal Ratzinger said the original Liturgical Movement was hijacked:

They (the Bugnini reformers) went from connecting people with the interior fabric of the liturgy to advocating textual reform and inventing actions and forms; the true understanding and praxis of participatio actuosa was replaced by a "liturgy-by-committee" which abandoned the centuries-long process of organic development.