Jackson,

I'll let Chonak speak for himself, but if you imagine an "efficiency expert" (say Frank Gilbreth), he worked to avoid wasting energy. The extravagance of the love God has for His children surely deserves more than "efficient" responses: what is the fastest I can get through this? That, clearly, would be the operative principle of the Ordo of Pope Paul VI.

What do you have as a principle of liturgy?

In liturgical dialogue, to each utterance a unique response.

Not the absurdity of the OF Memorial Acclamation.

Crucifers should be forcibly slowed down by preceding them with a thurifer.

Have in mind - especially 'liturgy commitees' etc. - that "Liturgy = Public Worship of the Church" (rather than private devotion of the congregation).
Have also in mind that the equation still holds when you add "Active participation of XYZ in ..." to both sides.

Regarding efficiency: how on earth would one define a return on investment in liturgy? The more you try to get one (of whatever sort), the less you are worthy of any ...
(btw. the shortest 'Masses' I know of - not representatieve - are Low Mass EF.)

There is a sufficiency of great principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium. 'Nuf said.

Our pastor Fr. Pfeiffer recently had a homily that was aptly entitled "The Eat and Run Mass" . I post the homilies on the parish website and give it a "theme" based on something he said. https://stpaulakron.org/homilies

I think it might be relevant to this discussion the principal being "how fast can we get the Mass over with".

An hieratic language - a sacred tongue.

Or as the eminent Fr. R. Skeris, Ph.D., put it: 'Sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, sacred music.'

Finally, there shall be no innovation UNLESS ...

Fostering cognitive dissonance is anathema to good liturgy.

E.g. For priests, is your homily really more important than a prayerful Eucharistic prayer? But isn’t that what you communicate when, to shorten mass after a long (usually bloated) homily, you choose EP 2 and go through it at the same speed that you would if you were calling an auction?

And we know All Saints is about saints, so given that the mass is a short one, why not choose a Eucharistic Prayer that actually mentions a bunch of them?

Planners: I know that the Apostles’ Creed is an approved option and its use is not an abuse — But on Trinity Sunday?

Musicians: The priest has just said (something like): “We join with all the choirs the choirs of heaven as they sing . . .” Does your Sanctus sound like it actually reflects what Father just said?

Recitation should be as rhythmically stately and uniform as singing (which should be stately and uniform).

If a committee thought of it, it's probably stupid; if something is stupid, don't do it.

How many things this could apply to in real life... If a (fill in the blank) thought of it, it's probably stupid; if something is stupid, don't do it. Simple, yet profound! :)

AFH... would this possibly be a committee of one?

A sung ℣ takes a sung ℟.
A spoken ℣ takes a spoken ℟.

If I shouted across the street to you and you whispered back, it would be quite odd. If you whispered to me and I screamed back in your ear, it would be offensive.

But in how many places does one hear the celebrant read out “Through him and with him....”, and The Choir answers with a 99-fold Great Amen with trumpets and cymbals?

My point is entirely invalidated by the immemorial custom of singing the Sanctus in response to a spoken preface.

Where I come from the Preface may or may not be sung, depending on the celebrant. The Sanctus is always sung and the congregation it sings well. What they sing best in my parish is the chanted "Our Father." If Fr. intones the words before the "Our Father," the congregation really responds! It does my heart good! This is an OF parish.

No, it's not my point. My rephrasing is quite intentional and purposeful. It's that, with the Sanctus being sung (in the OF, it is supposed to either sung or recited by everyone - congregation, choir and clerical celebrants - it's not a dialogical response to the preface but rather a hymn that is part of the anaphora in which *all* the faithful present join the angelic host - it's an eschatological dimension), the celebrant ought to chant the preface. The celebrant's failure to do that does not mean the Sanctus ought then not to be sung; it's entirely a failure on the part of the celebrant.

Much of the problem is a failure to set expectations in training. But there is a problematic residue with older roots: in a nearly all-or-nothing approach to whether the Mass itself would be sung or not. The conciliar reforms did remove the legal foundation for the residue, but the institutional culture the flowed from the residue remains in zombie-like life in too many clerics and places. Reciting the Sanctus is like a group recital of The Star Spangled Banner at a presidential inauguration - it ought to be unimaginable without laughing or crying (or both).

Liturgy is, first and foremost, prayer.

Would you accept the insertion of "highly structured"?

The Mass of St. Paul VI is not the Mass of St. Pius V. It is that way on purpose.

Do you mean that it is different in its essence and theology, or in its accidents?

Liturgy is a ritual.

"Liturgy is, first and foremost, a prayer

Are these two ways of saying the same thing?

Would you accept the insertion of "highly structured"?

I wouldn't -- but we might not share a Great Principle, in that case.

"Highly structured" is an accidental feature of the liturgies of certain traditions at certain historical moments. It may be more prudent, more unifying, more apt, more sane, etc. than a less structured approach, but liturgy is neither "first and foremost," nor even necessarily, a highly-structured thing.

It is ritual prayer, as chonak has added, but between the two of those, I think the primacy falls on prayer. (I arrive at this conclusion by the thought experiment: given the choice, if indeed it were a dichotomy -- deeper prayer, or more structured ritual, which one seems the more essential thing to foster and cultivate? I feel like the Scriptures and Our Lord are not silent on this question)

Liturgy is a ritual.

Yes, but not necessarily a highly structured one.

Do you mean that it is different in its essence and theology, or in its accidents?

Accidents.

Incardination, I think No Name was speaking from a pragmatic sensibility that, when dealing with those people who experience deep feelings when exposed to sacro-pop, respecting that emotional connection (which is all most people understand music to be) is just as important as upholding the Church's heritage, and belittling that connection is not productive.

It's easy to piddle around with the subtleties of rarefied emotional experiences and inner subjectivities, so let's go for something more drastic:

Sinner "X" is mired in a horrible, spiritually disfiguring addiction. His appetites and sensibilities are absolutely wrecked. Yet, he hears [insert your absolutely least-favorite piece of sacro-pop here] on his annual and reluctant visit to St. Y's church and, somehow, this cuts through all of the barriers that X has put up, and sets X on the journey whereby he finally gets help for his addiction, and resolves to try to give up sin.

This sort of thing does happen, and is obviously of profound spiritual significance, rising miles above the emotional and subjective level. We're talking about actual growth in holiness, repentance for sin, &c.

Church musician Z casually strikes up a convo with X, and offhandedly belittles [the piece that started it all for X], with consummate rolling of eyes. What good has Z done?

Sinner "X" is mired in a horrible, spiritually disfiguring addiction. His appetites and sensibilities are absolutely wrecked. Yet, he hears a Wiccan talk about how important it is to be one with nature on his annual trip to Stonehenge and, somehow, this cuts through all of the barriers that X has put up, and sets X on the journey whereby he finally gets help for his addiction, and resolves to try to give it up.

Must Z respect Wicca because it is causing X to seek to improve his situation?

I can choose not to denigrate, not to belittle, perhaps even to not engage in an argument without choosing to "respect" something that is inherently flawed. I can even appreciate the natural good from X's experience at Stonehenge, and encourage the same, without giving value to Wicca. That's the distinction I'm driving at.

The last six words of your #6 above embody what I believe you are trying to say. As in - "When discussing differences of opinion about sacred music, take ridicule out of your arsenal."

I'm saying this:

A man I much admire (now a very accomplished church musician), as a small boy, having come home from Catholic school one day in May, sauntered into the kitchen, where his mother was busy cooking.

He was singing, in that tuneless and nasal way that small boys wishing to indulge in mockery do, "Bring Flowers of the Rarest."

His mother began to weep: "That's my favorite hymn." He was horrified, and remains horrified to this day, that he hurt his mother like that.

_________________

Fr. Rossini is not off-base when he characterizes, in the preface of his Liturgical Organist, many of the PiP's as "simple and earnest." They are devoted to Our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist, believe in, confess, and crave This, and they lovingly associate those externals that accompany their reception of Him with His Sacramental Presence. For them, this is liturgical piety, not devotionalism.

They go home carrying tunes and their words in their hearts, and are upbuilt by them. Perhaps not ideal, but it's real, it's theirs, and it is approved and arranged for by their canonical pastor -- they are hardly trying to be disobedient or rebellious sons and daughters, and they would be utterly shocked to hear of anyone finding anything untoward about their piety.

Some of these people are also aware of chant and love it. They see no contradiction. Strange but true, and in my experience, common.

Often, I find their simplicity adorned with humility. If changes have been made, it's the Lord they love. They'll tell you what their favorite hymns were, if you ask, but never to complain. Just to remember. And they'll go to their parish week in, week out, for Our Lord, never hear their favorite hymn ever again, and not utter a cross word about it.

I want to have spiritual fruit like that borne in my heart.

I wish there was another option next to "thank" - a question mark.

Thanks for the context.

Adequate

variety.

Who gets to define what is adequate, in terms of variety?

To your larger point, I think you're correct that when all the devotions were packed off to the south of France those devotional ideas remained, and people started to put them into Mass.