No.

No.

No for me, too!
I can't fathom how bad music and poor literature can be entertaining or enjoyable.

Two fishermen who met along the sea... - sounds like.... a tawdry romance.

...and a 'gay' one, too!

I would not entertain the notion of using these at Mass (either OF or EF), but that was not the OP's question. This paragraph from De Musica Sacra (1958) says:

C. POPULAR RELIGIOUS SONG
51. Popular religious song is to be highly recommended and
promoted. By means of it, in fact, Christian life is filled with
religious spirit and the minds of the faithful are elevated.
Popular religious song has a place in all the solemnities of
Christian life, whether in public or in the family, and even during
the labors of daily life; but it has an even nobler part to play in
all the "pious exercises" performed inside and outside the church;
and it is sometimes admitted in liturgical functions themselves, according
to the norms set down in numbers 13-15.

The widespread loss of the "pious exercises" and "popular devotions" was another regrettable effect of the liberation of so-called 'liturgical reformers'. May I add, for the avoidance of confusion, that I was and remain a supporter of the call by the fathers at VII for a measure of liturgical updating.

In the scheme of things "Popular religious song is to be highly recommended and
promoted." I take popular to include the meaning "what people like". CMAA members are surely among those who should be "promoting popular religious song", with due regard to all separation from liturgy proper, and to the avoidance of heresy.

rolls royce-EF
ford fiesta-NO

kapish?

the EF does not enrich the NO nor vice versa.

and I would argue that the songs listed don't even fall under the category of religious music... more properly, refuse.

True the tune Kelvingrove, of unknown origin (i.e. Folk music), is not 'religious', early records are in collections of jigs and reels, for fiddlers (where it is in 4/4 time). And the first words collected were rewritten for publication to make it a tale of courting rather than rape and abandonment. And John Bell's use of Mark 1:16ff has four verses in the voice of Jesus, which renders them totally unsuitable for Catholic liturgical worship.
But does the hymn 'The Summons' not call our attention to a most fundamental question - How would I react if Jesus directly called me? Or more generally - How do I react when God calls me to do something. It seems to me that pondering this does have the consequence: "Christian life is filled with religious spirit and the minds of the faithful are elevated" YMMV!

Henry Ford's vision was different from that of The Hon. Charles Rolls. More mileage has been achieved in Fords.

you can't muss karma because karma is a farce. my karma has run over your dogma. i am glad your kapish is still intact. and remember... the trentmobile has gone far more many miles than the VII bug (nini) :)

i think de musica sacra was one of the first docs that started to put forth modernist philosophy. go back to tra le sollecitudini if you want the real thing

https://adoremus.org/1903/11/22/tra-le-sollecitudini

The meaning of the term "popular religious song" isn't obvious to everyone.

In "The Hymnal 1982 Companion", Carol Doran interpreted it by just looking up the meaning of "popular" in an American dictionary, and said that "popular religious song" is that religious song which appeals to a broad spectrum of people.

I'm skeptical about that interpretation: "commonly liked or approved" is one meaning of "popular" in English, but not the only one, and when the Holy See referred to "cantus popularis religiosus", the "popularis" probably just meant "relating to the people".

Fr. Joncas, in one of his books, takes the next logical step and treats the term as meaning "culture-specific religious music".

He also notes that different documents of the Holy See have described it with different characteristics. Musicae Sacrae Disciplina, he writes, placed popular religious song within the category of hymns (i.e., metrical songs based on strophic liturgical poetry) and claimed that such popular song arises from chant, while in contrast the 1958 Instruction "De musica sacra et sacra liturgia" does not make those characterizations. The 1958 Instruction also describes the source of "popular religious song" as being the "religious sense" which man possesses universally; hence it seemed to include songs with music not based on chant, and with texts from other sources such as Scripture or non-liturgical (i.e., devotional) religious poetry.

Well, I'll admit that I like Owen Alstott. I consider him the Melancthon of the post-V2 musicians - "the best of a bad lot."

"the best of a bad lot."

ouch. sorry Owen. We still love you as a brother in Christ, even if your music suffers from mediocrity and the tarnish of coming out of OCP.

Bio
Owen Alstott is prolific composer with a special mastery of sung texts for liturgy. Born and raised in Oregon, he attended high school seminary and the novitiate at Mt. Angel Abbey, a Benedictine monastery in the Willamette Valley. He graduated from college at Mt. Angel with a BA in philosophy and from the School of Theology in 1974. He also attended Willamette University for advanced studies in pipe organ and Marylhurst University where he worked toward a degree in music. Owen served OCP 1976–1992 as music editor, editor of missal and music publications and eventually as publisher. In 1992, he moved to London, England, where he founded a company that publishes and distributes religious education materials.

A gifted song text writer, Owen is a master of adapting, translating and setting texts to music for assemblies and choirs to sing at Mass. He is the composer of the popular Heritage Mass, as well as the chant-style responsorial psalms and Gospel acclamations in Respond & Acclaim, used by more than 10,000 Catholic parishes across the US. He is also the composer of beloved hymns such as “Come, O Holy Spirit,” “Gather Us Together,” “O Holy Mary” and “Wood of the Cross.”

Currently Owen lives in London with his wife, British composer Bernadette Farrell, and their daughter. He was appointed to the OCP Board of Directors in 2015.

I would have to agree in substance to Chonak's offerings up above.

As for the meaning of 'popular' when it comes to 'religious' songs, I am reminded of a certain Supreme Court justice of some decades ago who said, concerning pornography, 'we can't define it, but we know it when we see it'. One might go so far as to suggest that some, not all, but some, popular religious (not to mention non-religious!) music is pornophony - and that we can't define it, but we know it when we hear it.

Some of these popular religious songs, while not ever appropriate for liturgical or ritual use, are entertaining to some.
Some of them are not entertaining but tolerably innocuous.
Some are offensive, literarily and musically.
Some are absolutely insulting to human intelligence.... and
Some are, insofar as that they are detrimental to a healthy mind, immoral.

Too, to call a hymn or a religious song 'popular' can be misleading.
Certainly 'Eagle's Wings' and 'Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven' (to name but two examples) are, in a loose sense, popular; but while the former might be said to be a 'popular religious song', the latter, being in a category of fine hymnody and music, could not. It is a broadly liked hymn, but it not a 'popular religious song'. Etc....

I'm kind of partial to "Gifts of Finest Wheat", as long as it's not done as a waltz (as I once heard a P & W band do). I have nostalgia for "They will know we are Christians by our love". And I love "Bring flow'rs of the fairest". But none of them really belong in the Mass. The last belongs with your buddies around the piano, with the "water of life".

You know, this whole forum just got trolled. :-)

Jackson's thesis on post conciliar musique popular herein: https://youtu.be/eHtuOgtlUjg

Yes.

There are very few forms of music which I do not like. (Jazz, heavy metal, house).

As to what's appropriate for worshiping God - check your bible to see what Jesus recommends, and how much emphasis he puts on good taste (sic) vs loving your neighbour.

...how much emphasis...

The equation of 'good taste' with not loving one's neighbour is noxious, oh so tiresome, arrogant, and is a philosophical non sequitur - all in addition to being essentially unloving and presumptuously judgmental.
As is also the implication that 'bad taste' and loving one's neighbour are ipso facto bedfellows.
(My observation is that they seldom are.)
There seems to be a certain kind of mentatlity (if, indeed, 'mental' is a relevant signifer here!) that automatically calls love into question the moment heritage and taste are entered into, but never when 'bad taste' is a part of the equation.
Curious!
One might even say 'eccentric'.
(And 'eccentric' doesn't just mean 'odd' -
it really means 'off centre'... in other words, 'unbalanced'.

There is, in fact, nothing quite so ontologically loveless as bad taste and the defense of it; nor, equally, anything so ontologically loveless as the purposeful rejection of good taste.
Good taste and heritage are sui generis and in their essence ontologically lovefull.

Someone mentioned "The Summons" and I have to comment. Every time I hear this song I shudder! I cannot sing it and I know I will never "kiss the leper clean ( Mentally I go quack, quack) and do such as this unseen ( quack quack). This may be one of the worst hymns(?) ever written.

I try to love my neighbor, but I can still recognize "Schlock" as my father would have called it.

The Summons has a killer moment: the UU ("you" you) moment. It never failed to trigger giggles or at least something like eye-rolls. How that made it past an editor (assuming there was one) is beyond me; that's the kind of thing a good editor is supposed to fall on his/her sword to kill an author's little darling in order to ultimately save the author.

While not as criminal as the entirety of "Anthem", someone who defends programming that verse as poetic and things like it loses some credibility in excoriating the unnecessarily Latinate syntax and over-reliance on not-great cognates of some of our current collects.

As I've said before, also check your Bible for detailed instructions regarding temple ritual. I mean, Leviticus isn't just for confounding sexual deviants, people. (Or am I being too mean and 'Old Testament'?)

To add a gloss to Chonak's pelucid observation just above...

'A beautifully crafted Music is as an Holy Icon written in Sound:
Of Realms Invisible it offers a Glimpse,
whilst Those Visible it reveals in a Perspective more Profound.'
-MJO

Wherein music fails in this, whether it be sacred or non-sacred, it fails as worship, as companion, as guide, as tutor, as entertainment, as friend.
Thus does it fail as music and is but a tawdry, currupt and corrupting 'thing'.

Thank you for the bio above on Owen Alstott. I didn't know they were a couple. I think Bernadette Farrell is one of the best contemporary hymn writers. She is not usually given to "nice guy-ism" or psychobabble lyrics. Her tunes are easily singable for a congregation. I am not a fan of Owen Alstott's settings of the Sunday psalms. They often have harmonies that are filled with exotic and unnecessary (and/or misleading) chords and the Gospel Acclamations occasionally have counter-intuitive leaps with exotic chords for accompaniment which are not helpful. Sometimes the rhythm doesn't match the logical or theological emphasis in the text. For this Church musician who has an above average musical ear, I think they discourage some singers from trying to have chanted psalms. What they put for guitar chords is often ridiculous!

Pax.

In addition to checking our Bibles, perhaps we should consider what the Church has always taught about music and the august ceremonies of the worship of God.

Absolutely. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand.

But keep a clear eye out for words like "always". For example, the church has not "always" taught that the organ has a place in worship. Especially not the type of organ that requires electricity to pump its bellows. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to use it now.

Francis,

the Church has always taught

Pax,

I grant the small part of your point, but I would insist that the Church has NEVER taught that sacropopschlock is acceptable for the august ceremonies of the worship of God.