Leaving aside the sense that I've stumbled into the second half of a heated discussion, I would say that, "it must be stated that he is offering only ONE possible approach, the approach that he has discerned is best for his flock, his time and place," applies also to the Second Vatican Council. Those fellas made a play, and it turned out the way it turned out. Now we have to figure out what to do.

As with so many things, this is a balance of ideals that exist in a state of inherent tension.

On the one hand, yes, “full, conscious, and active participation”, as generally understood, includes some degree of congregational singing. On the other hand, preservation of the musical patrimony more or less implies (requires?) that such music (which generally excludes the congregation’s singing) be part of the Church’s liturgy. Considering the congregation’s participation “above all else” does not imply the reckless desuetude of art music (esp. choral music) that some seem to want it to be.

As I see it, it’s perfectly legitimate to give some, perhaps even all, of the Proper parts of the Mass to the choir. There is still plenty for the congregation to sing—much of which (esp. the “first level” from Musicam Sacram) is “untapped” in most places. We thus arrive at a “dialogue” among the various “players” in the liturgy: celebrant, congregation, and choir.

Alternatively, have the choir sing part of the Ordinary (e.g., the Gloria), and have the congregation sing more of the Proper, and/or more hymns, to “compensate”. This can work well on Christmas, for example, when lots of folks look forward to singing carols: have your choir sing the Gloria and maybe a short communion motet, then do carols throughout otherwise.

A formula that I have seen work well is to use simple (e.g., Anglican Use Gradual) chants for the Proper, then do hymns alongside them. You thus “cater” to both traditions.

Moreover, to assume "pastoral" means "encouraging active participation" (whatever THAT means) is also problematic.

Often "pastoral" is used to mean "things people like," which is a serious misunderstanding of the idea of pastoring, or shepherding, people.

A shepherd's job is to keep the sheep safe, to make sure they are healthy and well fed, to promote their growth, and to cause them to move to where they need to be. The best shepherds are able to keep the sheep happy and comfortable while doing so, but no real shepherd would think that moment-to-moment happiness and comfort are the primary goals.

It's a fairly reasonable, if overly cliched statement from the liturgist. Of course, there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to liturgical music - that would be a good common ground. The liturgy should also take on the best of whatever culture it is in. And it is not the case that you can always and everywhere just make the decision to incorporate chant and polyphony. You have to have a decent acoustic, frankly, for chant to come alive, not to mention good singers. And polyphony is even harder. You might be able to agree with this liturgist that far - assuming he/she is not one of those who thinks chant and polyphony are inherently bad.

Here's some pushback on a couple of cliches, though:

1 - That this music "had its place" in a certain time in Europe. A red herring here. The music also "had its place" in mission lands around the world. Just look at Mexico as one example. For centuries there was a fruitful interplay between Old and New World - churches and organs built incorporating native art, native composers as well as Spanish expatriates. There is a wonderful tradition of chant, polyphony, and organ in Mexican history stretching over centuries. Of course, the big publishers now would like to condescend and pander to Mexicans as second-class citizens in every way, with second-class music. The liturgist probably thinks that Mariachi is a 'genuine' form for Mexican culture, but chant or polyphony would be foreign. In fact, Mariachi is European brass-band music that came to Mexico relatively recently and has less pedigree than chant and polyphony in that culture.
Second point to the above, America is in large part a European melting pot (although to be sure, it's tipping more toward Asian and Latin now). So pigeonholing music as "European" in no way makes any kind of argument about its use in America.


2 - The liturgist needs to brush up on music and music history. Polyphony is a very broad term - music in many independent voices. Each era has had compositions in a polyphonic style. To suppose that polyphony=Renaissance is to be ignorant of basic music theory and history. I could write a polyphonic composition tomorrow...
And I think it's pretty clear that the Church says "polyphonic music is by no means excluded" in this broad sense. SC is not just referring to Renaissance music; it is making a distinction between monophony and polyphony and saying both are acceptable. Naturally, the polyphony of the Renaissance golden age has a special place in the treasury, but it's not the only polyphony.

3- Renewal of chant...not sure where to start here. It took place in the late Romantic era, that's two eras later than the Baroque. It was not a reaction against polyphony - if it was a reaction to anything it was an alternative to theatrical, operatic music in the church. And a distinctive feature of Baroque music was its clarity - melody and figured bass, rather than the full polyphonic texture of the stile antico. And...never mind...I could go on but there is just too much wrong with the liturgist's knowledge of music history.

4 - Polyphony is unintelligible. This is indeed a battle that has been fought since the advent of polyphony. But it should be said that a huge amount of polyphony is perfectly intelligible. Especially that from the 16th-century. A sensitive setting by a master actually brings out each line of text in a meditative way rather than obscuring it. Go listen to Byrd's Ave Verum or the Josquin Ave Maria or any 4- or 5- voice Palestrina Mass and tell me that polyphony is inherently unintelligible. The liturgist is repeating a cliche, but clearly has no familiarity with the repertoire as performer or listener.

My previous blog post is now two minutes old. It 'had its time' and now as I am moving to the practice room it is no longer relevant to this discussion. LOL