If I recall, Gabriel, Jeffrey has commented upon this in a number of articles over at NLM. Those could likely lead to other sources.

I've recently started using a phrase that i expected to elicit some disagreement but it hasn't, no matter how often I've used it. I wonder if it is because it just unexceptionably true. It is to call chant "the Church's music."

Do you think that is true that chant can be called the Church's music, and, moreover, is the only music that can be so designated? It is the only music that has a connection to the Roman Rite that can really be considered proprietary of the Church. We can really say this of modern hymns or classical Masses or even Renaissance polyphony.

Any thoughts on that?

The Roman Rite is not the Church, so I think it would be wrong to state that Gregorian chant is the Church's music in such a way that compels Eastern Riters to use or enjoy it. Furthermore, the music of the Eastern rites is shared by those inside the Church and outside (Orthodox), so again no claim there. I would generally temper that statement as "Gregorian Chant is the music of the Latin Rite".

Popular music has almost always been sung in church. And banned. And come back again. In the forms of organum, polyphony, and finger-pickin' guitarists.

Only Gregorian Chant, in the 98% of the church that is the Latin Rite, has endured. No one else wants it, no one else does it, no one confuses with anything else.

Sounds like the Church's Music to me. Since chant melodies form the foundation of music, it's hard to consider the concept that it is just music carrying words of prayer. If it were, modern music would be drastically different. It'd be words. And would probably not contain contractions like it'd.

It'd not.

It'd over.

It'd out.

Ok, yes, thank you. So how about "the Church's music for the Roman Rite." That seems to sum it up. If anyone starts using this phrase, I would be curious at the response. so far it has elicited no disagreements. It is a good way for us to speak about the subject in a summary way.

"why did you sing that Latin chant stuff today?"

"Because it is the Church's music for the Roman Rite."

"Why should we sing this Sanctus?"

"Because it is part of the Church's music for the Roman Rite."

Thanks for the quote G.

And yes, it is the 'Church's music for the Roman Rite'. Not quite so catchy as 'The church's music', but still works!


Gabriel

I don't think we should play the "numbers game" to marginalize Eastern Rites. I don't take a stance of superiority with chant, I don't view it as intrinsically superior to most other music traditions. What I DO say (as with Latin) is "This is the Roman Rite, so we will do Gregorian Chant. There's no other way around it. If you don't like Gregorian Chant, there's 26 other Rites with their own musical tradition."

There's always protestantism, I suppose. Or if they don't like any of those musical traditions, they can just start another denomination. May as well, since their theology is likely different as well...

Sounds like a brand of microwavable popcorn. A tasty treat to go along with watching your performer-priest's zany antics!

A more detailed exposition of the issue of the relation of chant to text is given in Pope John Paul II's Chirograph on the Hundredth Anniversary of Tra le sollecitudine. Here he emphasizes its intimate link not only with its texts, but also with the liturgical action it accompanies:

4. In continuity with the teachings of St Pius X and the Second Vatican Council, it is necessary first of all to emphasize that music destined for sacred rites must have holiness as its reference point: indeed, "sacred music increases in holiness to the degree that it is intimately linked with liturgical action"[11]. For this very reason, "not all without distinction that is outside the temple (profanum) is fit to cross its threshold", my venerable Predecessor Paul VI wisely said, commenting on a Decree of the Council of Trent[12]. And he explained that "if music - instrumental and vocal - does not possess at the same time the sense of prayer, dignity and beauty, it precludes the entry into the sphere of the sacred and the religious"[13].

5. . . .Indeed, liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite. The various moments in the Liturgy require a musical expression of their own. From time to time this must fittingly bring out the nature proper to a specific rite, now proclaiming God's marvels, now expressing praise, supplication or even sorrow for the experience of human suffering which, however, faith opens to the prospect of Christian hope.

practicing in sacred space, before the Blessed Sacrament, especially with good acoustics for chant

People DO NOT LISTEN. Jeffrey's approach is effective because this same person, when talking with someone else who criticizes the new music, has a choice of agreeing or standing up for the new music, using Jeffrey's words.

People need answers. People need Masses in the Diocese where they can SEE and HEAR what is possible. And these Masses need strong publicity which also gives answers.

As to the ORIGINAL question...

The music illuminates, or illustrates, the text. (You can find that in Ratzinger's writings, someplace.)

All high-end music does that. Just using Ordinaries as examples, look to Beethoven's Solemnis, Mozart's Requiem, Faure's Requiem, or Britten's War Requiem. There is no question that finely-crafted music "carries" the text's meaning--or amplifies it.

Same with motets, e.g, any of Bruckner's works, or Peeters, or Palestrina, although his are a bit more challenging to discern.

In the secular regime, see e.g., Bizet's Carmen, Bernstein's West Side Story, ...we could go on.