All well and good. But is he willing to forego some of that OCP money to make real changes?

I agree, and I wish him all the best. But OCP is powerful and rich.

I'm very encouraged by those excerpts. But I won't be delighted (or believe that anything will actually change) until something permanent and costing is done.

A cleric of my acquaintance, now Bishop Emeritus, would chant when neccessary. But his gifts did not extend to recto tono, more peregrīnābātur

I know their new diocesan hymnal is in use, but that’s the extent of what I know.

OCP also publishes the "Trinitas" series, which has some good choral music. David Hurd recently released a collection of music through that series, some of which I hope to plan in the future. It's honestly a shame that they don't show it off, since that music is much more appropriate than what they seem to be pushing out.

Archbishop Sample's letter has been the subject of some rather uncharitable comments in the comment section over at Pray Tell (one person saying because there is a significant homeless problem in Portland, this letter shows his priorities are wrong. Period.). The "official" response at Pray Tell will soon be published.

Some kinds of pseudo-arguments look ridiculous already, on their face, and don't need rebuttal.

I heard this was "not popular" at the forum of "the Catholic Music Org that had Fr. James Martin SJ as their keynote speaker" as well. But I don't have time to investigate such things.

I would not characterize today's post by Paul Inwood at Pray Tell as uncharitable toward Bishop Sample. Inwood, despite his biases, does after all reveal some inconsistencies in Sample's pastoral letter. Those of us with more traditional liturgical preferences perhaps place too much hope in legislative edicts to resolve our concerns. The influence and power of OCP is formidable and one bishop's letter is not going to change ingrained habits. Anyway, compared to the present uproar between Dolan and Cuomo, there are more pressing issues commanding my attention.

The influence and power of OCP is formidable and one bishop's letter is not going to change ingrained habits.

I agree, any time you threaten the money of an organization no matter how benevolent they pretend to be you will see where their God really does lie. OCP and GIA have only changed moderately because of the times and because they're smart enough to see the writing on the wall. I would surmise (probably incorrectly but the hunch is there) that they will eventually try and take possession of the Graduale itself and therefore have more of a monopoly on the music in the church. NO ONE let's go of power easily without the right virtue and I think we've seen plenty of example of their virtue. Power corrupts and let's be honest, THEY have the power still. I'm sure I'm wrong but it wouldn't be impossible nor even uncommon.

Yes, the good archbishop's letter may have its issues. But what we are seeing is a type of incrementalism. More and more things are being said in favor of tradition and recovery. This is just one more addition to the mix.Over time, the shifts are occurring. Be grateful for these statements. Let PrayTell have their fun. Even they know the tide is changing. I have been watching and waiting for 30 years. I can attest to the change. Bon courage Archbishop Sample.

Dr. Ostermann is a good man of great virtue. You'd think it would be enough battle for him to take on the polar vortex this week, but now he also tries to evangelize at PTB!

The biggest problem with the good Archbishop's well-intended arguments lies within his quick movement from the ethereal to the specific. He leaps from broad-spectrum idealism to specific examples that are used not to support but to provide an antithesis to his original thesis without unpacking necessary terms.
For example, leaping from "sanctity, beauty, and universality" to "the Gloria of the Mass set to a Polka beat or in the style of rock music is not sacred music."
Such is unnecessarily hard and fast and smacks of disconnected and lazy aesthetics masquerading as holiness and musically astute.
Although excellent points are made, it is obvious that the Most Reverend has never served as a Director of Sacred Music. While I appreciate his idealism, rooted firmly in church documents, and admirable in content, he has left too much to the imagination and to unquestioning authority.

MBurrier,

I think the Archbishop means to use such examples as the pre-emptive strike against the charge that he lives in an ivory tower somewhere. Polka beat and rock music not sacred music..... but we write stuff so it sounds like our modern society so..... Ah! The Archbishop intends us to change, without embarrassing us in front of our core constituency?

All of arguments from the detractors of the Archbishop's letter can be summarized in one word: Protestantism.

If they really think they have sung a new church into being, then they should call it such. But if they profess to be members of the Roman Catholic Church, then they should act accordingly.

I am so sick of the argument "the people don't know it". Then teach them! No one knew any of the music we have been subjected to in recent decades before it was introduced. It was only though repetition that songs that are not even well written for congregational singing have become so well known and even regarded as "traditional".

What is so difficult about abstaining from musical instruments for 3 days? Perhaps more fasting and mortifications are in order.

Back in my parish days, we sang an eclectic mix of songs during the Triduum from Gather Comprehensive including "Jesus took a towel" by Waddell, the Spiritual "Calvary" along with several Taize refrains and traditional Gregorian Chant all unaccompanied. It was the only time of the year when no one complained about the music.

The hardest thing was transitioning the cantors to a cappella psalms for the vigil. We started using Fr. Kelly's settings with Meinrad tones. The first year I accompanied softly with an acoustic guitar (unamplified). The second year I only strummed a single chord to establish the key. By the third year they knew them well enough to use no instruments.

People aren't as stupid or incapable that some make them out to be.

I don't see commenting at PTB as firing shots in battle with the reprobate; but rather as participating in a forum where my preconceptions are probably not generally shared. Anytime I do feel the need to push back in that forum, I try to craft comments that are constructive and non-incendiary. I've found it to be a respectful and valuable place at times when I set strict boundaries for myself.
I am curious to see what the "official" PTB response will be. It is curious in the first place that when a bishop summarizes existing liturgical music guidelines and legislation there would be a perceived need for a "response piece." While I also wince, with mburrier, at a couple of ideal-to-specific leaps (while I agree with their sentiments, they make the prose and argument less effective IMO), I don't see much personal opinion in the document at all. It's not as if Sample is mandating a diocesan repertoire or hymnal, or male altar servers or something legislative like that - or banning any particular songs.

In addition to Jared Ostermann's commentary at PTB, I should mention that our own Liam also made some cogent comments (to both topics).

In Sing to the Lord (STL) 126-136, we have three judgments (one evaluation): liturgical, pastoral, and musical. ("This evaluation requires cooperation, consultation, collaboration, and mutual respect among those who are skilled in any of the three judgments, be they pastors, musicians, liturgists, or planners"

Archbishop Sample offers a curious, additional map: sanctity, beauty, and universality, which are noble, albeit hopefully obvious.

Yet he rushes to judgment, in my humble opinion, and thus, somewhat begrudgingly, I must defend a polka Gloria.

1. It's not really a polka unless done in 2/2. I like the 3/4 settings of Glorias better, but that's me.
2. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about a polka Gloria, in and of itself. Psalm 149 isn't picky about it. And STL 70 allows for cultural context. (I live in a community with a significant Czech-bred heritage, so there are at least two parishes that will incorporate their folk music into Mass regardless of what anyone else thinks).
3. The existence of a musical style or instrumentation not wholly innate to the Church does not necessarily dismiss it from appropriate use during Mass. We all certainly understand the distinction between sacred and secular intent and execution, so whether it is a pipe organ (not innate nor unique to the Church) or autoharp is beside the point.
4. Of all the parts of the sung Ordinary, the Gloria sung in a polka (or gigue, or allemande) style makes just as much sense as any other. Musical forms are outside of sacred/secular ownership. (I believe we already covered this in the Council of Trent).
5. Finally, something doesn't have to be serious in order to be important. Some of these battles are so bloody because there is so little at stake. Our main tasks are to love the Lord and love our neighbor. Or in the words of Micah, "You have been told, O mortal, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God." Ergo, our jobs as Sacred Music Directors goes well beyond mere gatekeepers of select musical tastes.

Perhaps MBurrier is trolling this thread? There's no other excuse for his post.

Polka is, in origin, not a Polish dance but Czech. Mazurka is a (lovely) Polish dance*; the Polonaise might be said to be a Frenchified Polish dance or perhaps a Polish-inspired French dance.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2vfnA_1pjk

Very nice, everyone.
No, I'm not trolling.
I've been a DM for 25 years and consider my calling to be important.
Though Jared, for example, enjoys the labels of "boilerplate" and "irrelevant", he makes the same mistake as the dear Archbishop (sc. blindly moving from general to specific) while ignoring the necessary aesthetic, liturgical, and theological steps.
In other words, most arguments against a style or manner of executing a liturgical song are usually rooted in an academic preference-cum-a particular ax to grind.

Those of us who are merely classically trained fail to realize the neuroses that have crept into our psyches, to the point of prioritizing style over content, education over edification, thus failing to do our jobs as musicians because (we think) the congregation isn't smart enough, dedicated enough, or such other nonsense.

The final paragraph of JaredOstermann's response is of particular concern to his state of mind. Focusing on loving God and our neighbor is Christianity. There is no valid Catholic argument against it, no matter what your musical tastes may be. It is beyond question.
How that leads to suicide is beyond me, since the Catholic Church, no matter how liberally interpreted, would ever come close to connecting such.

It's all sacro-pop.

Hardly that. More like sacrilegio-pop.

mburrier -

First, I apologize if my response came across as overly brusque or dismissive of yours. I for one wish there could be more cross-fertilization on all forums online, rather than echo chambers. At the same time, if you want to argue your point you should be prepared to actually argue it, rather than simply stating it. Which means dealing with counterarguments, analyzing them, and then pushing back with counterarguments of your own.

Sometimes to be concise I will just cut right to the chase, with a word like "irrelevant". This is a way, not of dismissing your thoughts, but of paring away those particular thoughts/arguments which do not truly address the subject at hand. For example, the question of time signature (2/2 vs 3/4) is not relevant because the time signature itself is not what people object to in a polka gloria (or in other styles seen as inappropriate). The question of which ordinary text is in use is not relevant, because Sample is objecting to a particular style (not to the fact that a style is used for one liturgical text vs. another). Loving God and our neighbor, while a true and fundamentally-binding duty, is not immediately relevant to the specific question of musical style. In other words, this duty does not, inherently, imply one style or another. However, in its implications, this duty could become relevant to the question. We cannot love God and dismiss His Church and her teachings. Therefore, the love of God would actually imply that we should be faithful to the teachings of the Church on sacred music. And Sample (who as a bishop is also a part of that hierarchical authority, especially on liturgical matters) roots his entire letter in Church documents and papal statements. Not on personal preference and not on academic points, as you assert. As far as I know, having earned a doctorate in church music, academia does not have much to say about which styles Catholics should use in worship.

Also, I suppose "boilerplate" can be seen as dismissive, but I have just seen your points made so many times, with such assurance, that it seemed like a good description. Maybe "typical" would be a better word, although that seems a little dismissive as well. My point in using the word "boilerplate" is that advocates of traditional sacred music should expect your lines of argument, and formulate a good response rather than dismissing them as trolling.

Chonak has already responded well to your style vs. content dichotomy (which is a false dichotomy, by the way). The medium is, indeed, the message. I will just add that, since traditional music almost always utilizes the core, official sacred texts of the church (which are in turn scriptural and patristic in origin), there is no need to prioritize style OVER content. It's not as if people are advocating that we sing poor sacred texts because Palestrina composed a setting. Education vs. edification is another false dichotomy. In fact, true education (formation of the human person, not distribution of data) is integral to true edification.

Finally, you completely misunderstand my comments on loving God and neighbor. I nowhere dismissed this commandment - in fact, I pointed out that this commandment is of the highest ultimate importance. The problem is when you focus on the primary Christian concern, as if it negates all secondary concerns. Then every other secondary discussion and concern (how shall we eat? how shall we organize our society? how shall we worship God?) can be dismissed as "not as important" as the Greatest Commandment. In fact, if love is a choice for the good of the other, then love of neighbor REQUIRES secondary concerns. We love God and neighbor in specific, real ways (which we must discern), or we do not love them at all. One way a music director loves neighbor is by making choices for their good, in the particular realm of music.

You misunderstand the suicide comments. One line of heresy in church history (exemplified by Manicheanism) is that the physical world is inherently inferior to the spiritual, and is irredeemably tainted by evil. This has led various individuals and group movements to a policy of suicide (sometimes directly after baptism, to ensure quick entry to heaven). After all, why linger in a fleshly prison when you could move to the spiritual realm? One logical conclusion of taking the highest spiritual good as a negation of all secondary goods is to commit physical suicide. We can also commit intellectual suicide, when we refuse to grapple with secondary questions because "the most important thing is just to love God and our neighbor." It's not an actual argument in favor of (or against) anything.

Dad,

Will you help me start a thread, on how to define good music from everything else?