I'm trying to think of something helpful. Hmmm. I believe St. Pius X did a fairly pithy job in his motu proprio on the subject. Look at the opening paragraphs and, something closer to a rule of thumb, perhaps p.79. JPII's chirograph expands on St. Pius' principles, esp. in paragraphs 1-7. The chirograph is a great read, maybe you've read it?

http://adoremus.org/Chirograph-SacredMusic.html


As an aside, Jam, I often feel like dancing during triple meter sections of more upbeat motets. My husband came home to find me jumping rope to Byrd's Mass for 4, and had a hearty laugh at his sacred music nerd. (Hey, I get score study in however I can!)

You would leave out a ton of 17th-century music, then. Lots of great dance rhythms. No Bach, either, but I'm always a little reluctant to use his vocal music anyway. He was an excellent theologian and worked that into the music quite adeptly.

By the way, singing "Qui manducat" makes me want to dance, so I'm not sure that's a criterion. Who was it that said on here something to the effect of "sacred music does is not something to make us feel happy, but a way for us to express the happiness we already feel"?

If applause feels completely appropriate after hearing the piece, then it's probably inappropriate for Mass.

Mum, you have my full permission. I think it's best to use popular music of a high quality, or at least something that you particularly like, so as not to be accused of putting up a straw man just to tear it down.

Its performance should never call attention to the performer.

This may be a function of the performer or the music itself.

I used to hear the Laudate Dominum from the Mozart Vespers and think, ya know, sorry, but that just doesn't work in the context of liturgy, (I know, heretical to most musicians.)

Then I heard it sung, (by one of the greatest sopranos I've ever been fortunate enough in whose presence to sit, so if she'd wanted to, she could have made the entire church rise and give her a standing o in awe,) in the context of fully sung Solemn Vespers, and realized, but only AFTERWARDS, ah ha! THAT'S how it's supposed to work!

And after that bit of diffidence, not calling attention to the performer, to be truly great liturgical music, it shouldn't really call attention to itself, per se.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Dittos to Ralph's contention.

My (subjective) test is like incantu's: would someone hearing this know that they're in a church, or that something sacred is going on? Then again, I would tend to say that context is key to suitability. St. Paul would probably be scandalized by the obscene pagan melodies of fully developed Gregorian chant. Pope Marcellus would shut up about intelligibility if he heard all the thirds and tritones in the baroque era. Jam herself is not in communion with the majority Roman Catholic members here, due to the use of the organ (ok, and the filioque, papal primacy, original sin, and all that jazz). I accept there could be a time when the organ becomes obsolete and what we now define as "pop music" could be considered as suitable to the liturgy and a venerable tradition, perhaps even by law. That idea gives me actual nightmares, but it could happen. For now, pop music is associated with secular culture and watered-down weak spirituality (no offense intended to evangelicals, but that IS the popular consensus on that music), and hence it should have no place in our churches.

I would further move Jam's question away, and say that it may be less profitable to speak of suitability and more profitable to speak of efficacy. For the goals of worship, whatever they may be, what music accomplishes those goals best? As I said above, I think a more mature faith and closer experience with God is achieved through the classic Western church music tradition, as opposed to the more shallow music of modern times. I think that discussion can prove more useful than high-and-mighty proclamations of "suitability".