Not to bring out old dispute on the 'Change and misunderstanding,' but hoping to help new chanters or people who are interested in sacred music.

One of my schola who attended "Ward method" workshop in CUA brought a copy of "Chronicle of the Reform" by Msgr. Schuler to our schola, and one of the chanter, who wasn't really into music before, is devouring the writing and shocked about the misunderstanding, asked the followings;

email 1
"I am reading the folder cover to cover. It is so interesting. This is what I understand from the folder:

Pope Pius X wrote Motu Proprio (one's own movement??) in 1902 on Liturgical Music because of concern over the Modernists. This is the same Pope who wrote an encyclical "on the Modernists" (I read it, it is very informative).

Then after Vatican II, when it was time to implement the changes down to the parish level, the Modernists saw an opportunity to sneak in changes that they wanted to do. They translated the documents and claimed that the Official documents said things which the documents never actually did say.

Is this how you understood it?"

email2
"I think it is because they did not read the documents. Just like Congress now is passing legislation that nobody reads (they are not even sure who wrote it); I am not saying that the Bishops were like Congress, but the language translation gave them an opportunity (maybe their Latin was not too strong) to do what they want. Below is an excerpt from pg 22 describing how the secular press got involved.


Pg. 22-23 The press took over. American newspapers, both secular and ecclesiastical, announced that the American bishops had approved the use of guitars, folk music and the hootenanny Mass. Despite repeated statements from the Holy See prohibiting the use of secular music and words in the liturgy, the movement continued to be promoted in the United States and in Europe. Deception played a part, since American priests were allowed to think that the decision of the Music Advisory Board was an order from the bishops themselves…Decisions of liturgical matters need the approval of the entire body of bishops….The hootenanny Mass never came to the full body of bishops [for approval]; it did not have to. The intended effect had been achieved through the announcement of the action of the Music Advisory board and the publicity given to it by the national press. It was not honest, and further, it was against the expressed wishes and legislation of the Church.

Meanwhile, the official directives of the post-conciliar commissions in Rome rarely reached most American priests. They knew only the commentaries on them provided by the liturgists… As a result the altars were turned versus populum; choirs were disbanded; Gregorian chant was prohibited; Latin was forbidden in some dioceses; church furniture and statuary were discarded. These innovations were thought to be the orders of the Second Vatican Council; rather they were the results of a conspiracy….

Not the least important point made by Musicam sacram is found in its very title, “sacred music.’ This reaffirms the statement of the council that the purpose of the church music is the “glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.” Some were trying to assert that all things are sacred, and thus all music was suitable for the liturgy. They were in fact saying that “nothing is sacred,” and the result was a desacralizaion.

__________________________________________________________________
That is pretty much as I see it. They used ever loophole they could find to do what they wanted to. My problem is: Why didn't somebody stop them? My guess is the corruption was so far up the ladder that no one would listen to the underlings crying for tradition."

I think Bishops and priests need to have sincere answers to the questions like above when the people of faith ask them.