And show them what the pope expects a congregation to sing https://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/libretti/2021/20211010-libretto-apertura-sinodo.pdf.

And show them what the pope expects a congregation to sing

A little chant and some bizarre Italian hymns in place of the minor propers?

As to the article, one gets the sense of an author unfamiliar with parish work.

Let’s make the Novus Ordo so compelling that no one will want to leave.

You can’t. As others point out, it is not in the nature or design of this fabrication to incorporate what is foreign to it.

@Salieri

the Parish Council--which entity is as demonically inspired as Eve's taking of the fruit

This is brilliant I am going to steal this.

What Salieri said.

I'm all for building these programs - just be aware of how quixotic it is and prepare yourself to move on when the time comes.

he likely can't permanently overrule the optionality of the OF.

Could the good archbishop (or any bishop) decide, citing Canon ... (I forget the number) that the current ars celebrandi of the Missal of Paul VI is hazardous to the spiritual health of the faithful in his diocese, and, accordingly, stridently restrict its use?

I respectfully disagree that the article is "very good". Apart from gliding over (as has been pointed out) the practical problems faced by many who seek to include chant in the mass (never mind banning "certain common hymns"), the article is heavy on assertion and light on reasons. Moreover, the assertions are ones that have been made already by many (as has also been pointed out), over the past decades.

There are also some rather bizarre remarks in the article, such as the one about singing "in the eight Gregorian modes throughout the Mass". (I sing a lot of chant, and I'm not sure I've ever sung all eight modes in one mass, though perhaps the remark isn't intended to be read that way.) I was also puzzled by the remark "the great ascetics who wrote the melodies that are about Christ", which suggests a precision of knowledge about the history of the composition of the chants that I've never heard claimed before.

The central problem is that this discussion needs a depth of exploration and reason-giving that is not even acknowledged much less pursued in this article.

I know first hand about those cantor pretensions. At the same time, I am so glad I don't know St. Jerome. I know, he is patron of librarians, but what a curmudgeon.

I think the article should be appreciated in this sense:

There is still a misperception among many Catholics, even those who work in parish ministry, that Latin and Gregorian chant are relics of the 1962 Missal. This article states that Pope Francis' recent restrictions on the celebration of the unreformed liturgy concomitantly include, at least implicitly, a call to make celebrations of the reformed liturgy more beautiful, which should involve singing Gregorian chant in the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass. Restricting the use of the 1962 Missal should not entail a rejection of chant at Mass.

Not many Catholics are aware that the Church still promotes Latin and chant at Mass because that isn't their experience at Mass; they are even less aware that "for decades" liturgical scholars in journals and on message boards have been advocating restoring chant to the Novus Ordo. This very recent article can be shown to such Catholics in parish work as an example of how, even today, there is a serious call in some circles to sing chant at Mass.

The article asks people to think about whether some of the most commonly sung songs at Mass are appropriate for Mass. Many Catholics have probably never stopped to think about that.

The article refers to the demographic collapse in the Catholic Church, and suggests one contributor to younger Catholics leaving the Church is the abysmal quality of the Church's worship, especially the bad music at Mass. Decades ago those trends were beginning but weren't as severe as they are now. Suggesting that beautifying Mass with chant as a way to attract interest in the liturgy among young Catholics who want worship to be more sacred instead of imitating pop culture is a message that quite a few older Catholics in parish work need to read or hear since they think playing music in popular styles is something to do "for the youth".

It's brief, so it doesn't demand more than a couple minutes of reading. Most people in parish work, including many pastors, are not going to be interested in reading an article of more than three pages, and they certainly won't be interested in a detailed, sourced (with footnotes) analysis of why chant should be sung in the Novus Ordo Mass. Short and sweet. To the point.

I think the points above will resonate with any music director involved in ministering at a typical American parish who has had to face resistance to singing chant at Mass among parish staff and parishioners.

As I said, I'm not against the points made in the article, as far as they go. It's the same points I've seen in dozens of articles over the past 25 or 30 years. And whoever wants to pursue this - more power to them. I've been attempting it myself lo these many years.

It's just that the very attempt has shown to me that this model is (with some notable exceptions) not sustainable in the current environment. In so far as the article doesn't address this, it comes across as naive at best and at worst, wishful thinking.

I appreciate the shortness and sweetness of the writing, and understand the author can't cover everything, but a nod to the fact that such a venture will involve serious and in some cases sustained opposition would lend a note of realism to the proceedings. It might also waylay the over-zealous musician from a potentially disastrous roll-out.

True, but it's often easiest to use such common-parlance terms, even if they aren't quite precise, if that's the term that everyone knows.

When such terms are contributing to the division that is currently ailing the Church and preventing legitimate progress in the Novus Ordo, I don't think it's worth it. I don't use "Mass parts" instead of "Ordinary" or "Eucharistic Minister" for "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" for the same reason, even if those terms would be more understood by uncatechized Catholics.

One of the worst side effects of Summorum Pontificum has been the exclusive association of chant, incense, the Latin language, and other forms of solemnity and/or tradition with the Extraordinary Form, inaccurately dubbed the "(Traditional) Latin Mass" by people who should really know better.

I have said for some time that the worst thing about some of the EF folks is that they have started believing their own hype. There is nothing particularly wrong with the EF mass, but Christ did not reach down from the cross and hand the apostle - there was only one there, btw. The rest ran away. He didn't reach down and hand the apostle the Missal of Pius V. There was roughly 1,000 years of liturgy before Trent with similarities to, and differences from, what came after Trent. Councils are always affected by the culture and state of affairs at the time those councils meet. Documents of Vatican II, for example, are mired in the 1960s era.

I wish better minds in the church could come to some agreement on what is good in both forms of the mass and promulgate the best of both as the norm. Of course, I don't know how to get the inevitable politics out of that kind of effort. Too many oxen would get gored.

I still think greater effort to tie the two uses together would have been helpful. There are feasts/observances in the EF that are largely meaningless today in a non-agrarian society. Much of the older music could have been preserved and adapted for use today instead of being tossed out, as it was for any practical purposes. More use of the vernacular since there never was anything particularly sacred about Latin. Preserve it for special occasions and high masses. However, the high masses are gone, as well. Unfortunately, we now have two camps that don't even speak to each other. I am not any great advocate for Pope Francis, but he is right that we now have a church within a church.

I didn't say throw out Latin, just use it more judiciously. As for what the exorcists say, and I have read some of their comments, they border on the superstitious. Latin in the church was in origin, not sacred but the language of the day. Rome fell, the civilization collapsed and Latin stopped developing. The people moved closer to modern Italian. If Latin had remained the vernacular language, it would have shifted, too. Latin scholars tell me Church Latin is not even good Latin.

legitimate progress in the Novus Ordo

Could you define this?

If the Vatican itself has defined the rite it has put forward (and its rubrics), how can you call it “nonsense”, and what change from the official definition makes it “authentic”?

Schoenbergian,

Neither is Francis. He's trying to find the daylight between the officially promulgated forms, complete with all their legitimate options and the nonsense.

What constitutes legitimate progress, instead of illegitimate progress?

(Francis, I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here, so stand by)

Is the use of any of 12 Eucharistic prayers, but mostly Eucharistic Prayer II legitimate progress?

Is the near complete ephemeralization of Latin in the prayers said by the priest and/or people legitimate progress?

Is Communion in the Hand legitimate progress?

Is the fact that, within the published, listed options, it possible to attend Mass every Sunday and never attend the same ritual twice, not counting as a change the lectionary, legitimate progress?

Is the clear insinuation that versus populum is to be preferred legitimate progress?

Is the use of girl altar boys or the ubiquity of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion legitimate progress?

We had our first reappearance of an EMHO just the other day and I was soooooo disappointed. I just don’t get it. I grew up with priests who would alternate line a, line b, line a, etc. and it worked just fine.

In fairness to my pastor, it was because the other priest was not available to be at that mass. (I genuinely do not see the point, especially since our church only seats 350 people comfortably, but the good news is that: ) Since the arrival of our new associate, they have both taken to being at every mass. Right before “behold the Lamb of God…” The priest who is not celebrating quietly come out of the sacristy in preparation to distribute holy communion. It’s been very nice only having two priests in the center aisle.

For my part, I refuse to receive communion from anyone but a priest. I will change lines and everything. Mercifully, I am almost never put in this position since it’s exceedingly rare that we travel.