During Ordinary Time, I have my NO parish chant the Ave Maria during the purification of vessels after Communion on the first Sunday of each month and the Salve Regina on the third Sunday of each month.

There's probably not more than a flimsy basis for that practice, but if I didn't do that then my parishioners would otherwise not be able to hear, learn, or sing those chants. They won't be learned if they are never or seldom sung.

During the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter we chant the appropriate Marian antiphon during the purification of vessels every Sunday.

PS: I wouldn't squint too hard if I found myself as a congregant being asked to sing the Regina Caeli on the Sunday between 15 Aug and 22 Aug.

"more explicitly eucharistic or Christocentric music"

The joy of the Magnificat is that it is explicitly both, though it's not a derivative didactic text *about* the Blessed Sacrament but precedes such: it's the very act of giving thanks for the very presence of the Body of Christ in our midst.

In our community we tend to use Marian hymns/ Antiphons for the Recessional all year round. I think it is a good option because the Mass has already ended, so those who are picky about those things wont get upset.

I didn’t say that the cardinal was right or that any one text named here would be excluded. However, Trenton observes what people will do when armed with this preference — and some of the chastisers are otherwise orthodox, so it’s not the same as in the 1970s.

For example, the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, Sept. 8, falls on a Sunday this year.

A shame: up until 1960 (I believe 1960, and not 1955) this was the case. While the redundant feast is actually the September one, which was kept in 1960 over the Passiontide feast, the same is in any case true on September 15; in fact, the feast was originally on a Sunday and can be kept as an external solemnity in virtue of this (and given that it's "Ordinary Time" it's not that big of a deal to do so in the NO).

This is in fact one of those where rule-following is not for the good of the faithful — who will never celebrate the Nativity of the BVM even when they are required to go to Mass and would otherwise be perfectly fine to not go out of their way to do so. I'm certainly not going to harangue the priest and report him for this if he did celebrate the Mass of Our Lady on September 8, even in the NO.

Deviating from the Mass of the day in this case is probably not a mortal sin, especially if you can justify it beyond "Father says so": "the good of the parish requires fostering devotion to the BVM, we are not bound to the Mass of the day to fulfill other obligations, the parish priest only need to say one Mass pro populo which can be any of the Sunday Masses, and in our grandparents' lifetime this would be patently uncontroversial."

Shoot, so long as the day was not a Sunday, a double feast or otherwise privileged, and so long as they didn't have a conventual or other obligation, priests didn't have to say the Mass of the day (I personally think that you ought to do so, if you are the lone priest, but even then, I concede that the Rorate Mass on ferias of Advent is not that big of a deal even on privileged ferias where you're not impeding a proper Mass).

On a similar note, are the monks of Clear Creek wrong for saying as a votive Mass of the BVM a Mass which can't be used as such, instead of offering the permitted ones under that devotion of the other Mass (e.g. a Mass of the Holy Name of Mary isn't allowed, technically, but is it really that bad? Of course not.)

"I'm certainly not going to harangue the priest and report him for this if he did celebrate the Mass of Our Lady on September 8, even in the NO."

Neither am I, but I am in no way going to commend it either*; if you are already heading down the "is probably not a mortal sin" road, there's not much else to say about it other than it's not at all as if using the propers of the impeded Marian feast were *required* to foster devotion to Our Lady.

* Neither did I report the pastor of a nearby parish in 2012 when he (and the lector, presumably at his instruction) simply elided the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart and celebrated the Mass of the Friday in the Nth Week of Ordinary Time, but it sure threw me for a loop.

IGMR46 ... Adhiberi potest sive antiphona cum suo psalmo in Graduali romano vel in Graduali simplici exstans, sive alius cantus, actioni sacræ, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.

Another chant appropriate to the character of the day or season.

FWIW, the Nativity of the BVM is one of two intermediate feast of our Lady impeded in the current Roman Calendar. Three solemnities are not (except when Immaculate Conception falls on The Second Sunday of Advent), and the Nativity of the BVM comes within roughly 3 weeks of one of them - the other impeded feast of the BVM that comes in May and would rarely occur on an Nth Sunday of Ordinary Time - that is, only if Easter fell on its earliest possible date, 22 March. Basically, the current norms of precedence treat all Sundays *at least* as feasts of the Lord, and that seems immensely sensible to me. (I don't have a hankering for preconciliar praxis in this regard.)

I don't report pastors for their liturgical delicts because, in my experience, chanceries actively resist suborning such reporting, even for pastors with very different liturgical sensibilities from their bishops. Clericalism. In practical terms, disobedient mucking around with Mass propers for days of precept (Sundays and Holydays of Obligation) has the added negative of confusing congregants who are required to be present, which does not apply to Masses on other days (though for myself, I was mighty fried in my pew on that observance of the Sacred Heart - I was already in a mood because my ability to offer my prayers of reparation became distracted by the very loud and rapid-fire group recitation of the Rosary that dominated the acoustic entirely - while I also pray the Rosary, that's not a way I can engage it).

In the end its not a problem of liturgy, its a problem of the spiritual life. If one is really so upset over that kind of thing, there is prob. something interior going on. I dont know how many priests I have heard who have said that they were "discouraged from praying the rosary in seminary because its a medieval liturgical practice". They are just using the liturgy as an excuse to promote their anti-marian culture which is so present in America due to a highly protestant influenced society which has effected even the Catholic Church. Why are our church with minimal statues, minimal adornment etc? There is something more serious than liturgy going on here. After the "Eucharistic revival", could we have a Marian revival?

"well, maybe our ancestors had it right after all" doesn't cut it at all to commend deliberate disobedience. (The new old Catholicism perhaps smacks a bit of Protestantism in that regard, though what's more at work is consumerism.) What it is is an argument to petition to change the governing legislation, nothing more; when asking a question, one has to be prepared for the answer to be No.

And, fwiw, my speculative impression about that pastor I mentioned is that it was somehow deliberate as well, not merely thoughtless in the instance. They more easily got away with it because there was no order of worship or missalette-like thing in the pews for weekdays, so it would only have confused those who knew the calendar and/or had hand daily missals (me on both counts).

To get back to the topic: I think there's plenty of room for singing "Marian music" during Ordinary Time (and priests who've insisted otherwise to me have not met with agreement on my part, even if they had the effective power to override anyone else), but helps mightily to choose thoughtfully instead of merely inserting without regard to the character of the day. The BVM is the exemplar par excellence of Christian discipleship, and most of the readings and character of Ordinary Time is a course in engaging habits of discipleship.

I will forever find it odd when people argue in favor of novelty, and against tradition.

It's one thing if you want to do the new thing (rightly or wrongly), but it's another entirely to speak against those seeking to do the thing that has always been done. When in doubt, it is always safe to honor what came before the novelty, even if it is not the "default" in current praxis.

I will cling to this quote until my dying breath:

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”

—His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
in the accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum, 2007