A few comments:
You might want to start with a search for articles that quote the following:

The usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people's participation in the singing, is to be deprecated. (Vatican II, Musicam sacram, 16c)

As one who serves a TLM parish where those kinds of Masses are the norm on holy days of obligation and when a first-class feast falls on a Sunday, I am thankful that we are not bound by the conciliar legislation. Gregorian chant, with congregational participation in the Ordinary, is usual for most of our High Masses throughout the year. Most of our people appreciate the beauty and value of polyphony in the liturgy, not only motets, but also Masses, and they do not feel excluded or shortchanged on those occasions where congregation singing is limited to a processional hymn, the responses, and a closing antiphon or hymn. We have a handful of parishioners who think we should have ONLY Gregorian chant sung by the schola - no congregational singing, no polyphony, no women's voices, little or no organ. I find it telling that these same people never come to the monthly Masses where we have just that - the whole Mass sung in Gregorian chant by the men's schola alone with little use of the organ.

Fr. Anthony Ruff, O.S.B., (not sure whether he's still active on this forum) has argued - compellingly, in my opinion - that when Church documents mention the treasury of sacred music, they are referring exclusively to chant.

The legend about Palestrina's Pope Marcellus Mass saving polyphony at the Council of Trent is now generally regarded as apocryphal. Just as the Masses of Mozart and Schubert were likely not what St. Pius X had in mind when he banned "theatrical" orchestral Masses, the sublime creations of Palestrina and Victoria were likely not what the 16th-century authorities had in mind when they condemned polyphony.

It is vitally important to bear in mind that nobody was familiar was authentic Gregorian chant in the 16th through 18th centuries. A corrupted version of the chant was then in use everywhere, shorn of its rhythmic variety and sung very slowly. Those who wished to ban polyphony supported the exclusive use of a style of chant that was later to be banned universally with the publication of the 1908 Gradual. Someone on this forum pointed out that the more elaborate "Medicaean" chant Kyries took longer to sing than some of the orchestral Kyries (anybody have a link to that discussion?).

I think it is also mistaken to associate the notion of congregational participation exclusively with the post-Vatican II era. Even well before the Liturgical Movement, we have some writers who mention enthusiastic congregational singing in certain places going back many centuries. And of course, active, exterior participation was promoted by pre-Vatican II Popes from Pius X to Pius XII.

As a quick addition, what is more directly provoking these questions and struggles for me is the fact that I moved (temporarily) 7 weeks ago near a TLM (FSSP) parish where nearly every Sunday is a polyphonic Ordinary, thus rarely using the gradual’s ordinary chant settings. Except for the Credo, that is - always Credo III, so far. And when the choir can’t get through the Agnus Dei in the pre-Mass rehearsal (which has happened 3 times so far), the Missa de Angelis Agnus Dei (Mass VIII). So, for me in my own circumstances, definitely an overload of polyphony; had never experienced that on a regular basis before now!

I've never been particularly moved by the "congregational singing" argument on its own. By that logic, we shouldn't have any sort of organ music, since the congregation itself could do something in its place. I've been to a couple of parishes where the recessional hymn was nonexistent and replaced wholly by a longer organ postlude - is that to be opposed solely on the grounds that the congregation should sing? To go down that rabbit hole alone is to be no better than those who insisted we must throw out the chant so that the people may sing everything as well - albeit in a more familiar idiom to them.

That being said, I would never entrust the entire Ordinary to the choir. But, at least on more festal occasions, giving them the Gloria and the Agnus at least (which tend to be the more elaborate choral settings) would provide some degree of additional splendour.

In which ways do you believe the chant Ordinaries to be superior to everything else? At the risk of seeming too much like a Modernist, music has progressed since the Medieval era, perhaps not always for the better, but always forward in some way, and always out of a steadfast desire to improve. Renaissance polyphony, with its paraphrase, if not literal rendition, of a chant c.f., is about as close as you can get to the Gregorian style in the choral idiom--but it certainly offers something new; at the very least, distinct yet equally appropriate and well-crafted. This says nothing about the various composers guided almost exclusively by chant, of the Durufle cloth. Are they to be excluded as well? This seems too narrow-minded to me, and does a disservice to those composers genuinely guided by the Gregorian idiom while seeking to create something distinctly theirs.

Our friend Jared Ostermann has written an scholarly dissertation on the topic of choral vs. congregational settings of the mass ordinary, as well as an articles in Sacred Music (Spring and Summer 2015, to which William Mahrt wrote a response). There is also this lively discussion on the Forum.

What is the precise rationale behind taking away the congregation’s normal way of participating in the Mass on a big feast day? . . . One reason I understand is given for this is that it is a solemn feast day, and we need something external to signify this and polyphony is seen as a special elaboration that fits this description, that adds to the solemnity. My personal reply to this is that there are particular chant Mass settings that are recommended for solemnities/first class feasts.

We get very little congregational participation when we sing Mass III, IV, or IX, to the point that when we sing those Masses, I no longer post the number on the hymn board or use an organ registration suitable for accompanying the congregation. I have received no complaints from people who miss congregational singing on feasts, nor have our priests, at least not to my knowledge. As I mentioned above, we have a handful of parishioners who are opposed to polyphony, but they are also opposed to congregational singing. Clearly, this is a listening preference, not a participation preference. I don't hesitate to remind them that we do have a Low Mass without music too, which might be a more agreeable option if they find the polyphonic or congregational singing distracting.

>> In which ways do you believe the chant Ordinaries to be superior to everything else?

apart from the fact that the Church has stated it? :-)

Many a time visitors have commented that upon hearing Kyriale VIII and Creed III for the first time in years / decades, all their memories came flooding back - and it's not impossible that they will return home and resume the practice of the Faith of their youth. IMO, any time that happens, it's huge.

We use the Kyriales maybe 85% of the time, polyphonic Ordinary for a big feast, say Pentecost, or Easter Day. The comments I've heard afterwards seem to say that the grand music fits the grand occasion.

I don't think anyone is saying there is no room for new composition; but we're told that chant is indeed superior, and other compositions rate more highly the more they conform to it.

just thinking... some of those good old Kyriales date back to tenth century. I can't name any sacred composer who has stood the test of time against that :-)

Charles - Even if you don't find my prose helpful, you may find the footnotes and bibliography of my dissertation helpful. I think I found just about everything written on the topic of the shift from chant to polyphonic ordinary. However, I was surprised to find that relatively little has been written on the topic. Particularly, about WHY the choral ordinary supplanted chant so universally, or what the reaction/impetus on the ground was as polyphonic ordinaries started to appear. Some points of interest in no particular order:

1 - the general official resistance from the church to polyphony (see Hayburn) seems to have had less to do with text comprehension, and more to do with the fact that the chant melodies themselves were obscured by being lengthened into various types of cantus firmus.

2 - the first polyphonic experiments (e.g. Winchester troper, Magnus Liber Organi) were, as we would logically expect, done with Proper texts, especially the Alleluia verse and the gradual. The most melismatic, virtuosic chants are thus the first to be developed polyphonically.

3 - The first complete (extant) Mass Ordinary, the Machaut Mass, seems to be a very special, unique case, and lacks clear predecessors or successors in the immediate historical vicinity. In other words, the polyphonic Ordinary did not "arrive" and proliferate starting at a particular date. Even after the Machaut Mass, it was not a big deal. In fact, well into the 15th century, the concept of a "choral Mass" was very fluid, and could describe a collection of propers, OR ordinary, OR a mix of the two, OR a complete setting of all propers and the ordinary for a particular day (the forerunner of the polyphonic Requiem Mass genre). So, why did the 5-movement choral Mass Ordinary eventually gain such total dominance? There is not a clear answer for this question, which is interesting since the choral ordinary is such a monumental repertoire. One thing I did find called into question by modern scholars was a Romanticized picture of an inevitable, evolutionary progression which reached a pinnacle in the standardized 5-movement choral ordinary. Many Catholic music directors who are proponents of excellent sacred music seem to me to share this Romantic perspective on the Ordinary. Any criticism of the choral ordinary is seen as an attack on the pinnacle, the crown jewel of the church's musical treasury. I would suggest this is not an historically accurate or particularly helpful attitude.

4 - from a practical perspective, having a core repertoire of congregational gregorian chant ordinaries is a wonderful goal. If we reach this goal, we ensure the consistent quality of the ordinary in our liturgies. We also ensure that gregorian chant has pride of place in the liturgy, and that people are familiar with it. Then, even if we have polyphonic propers, chant is not marginalized. HOWEVER, if we focus on choral ordinaries, we either ignore the church's injunction not to entrust the entire proper and ordinary to the choir, or we must jettison both the chant ordinary AND the chant proper repertoire (at least, at our choral Masses).

Although I've said it till I'm blue in the face, I'll say it again: To me, the Novus Ordo ideal is clear: Excellent congregational ordinaries, including chant ordinaries. Choral propers (whether chant or polyphonic). I have to say, though, that I have only seen that ideal consistently achieved in one parish in my life: the Rochuskirche in Vienna.

A superb illustration of chant and polyphony at the same mass is to be experienced in the hearing of Paul McCreesh's CD, Missa Cantata, in which the mass for Christmas Day as done at Sarum in the late XVth century is revisited. In this performance the chant proper, readings, etc. are beautifully contrasted with John Shepard's polyphonic ordinary, the Missa Cantata. The juxtaposition of these genres is powerful testimony to the profound dramatic potential of chant and polyphony in the same mass. Of equal dramatic power is the calculated entrance of boy choristers at certain points in the chants. Their octave-higher voices at certain moments of both chant and polyphony add a potent emotional and didactic element to the continuum of ritual drama. Our late mediaeval brethren must have known what they were doing in the careful, calculated, juxtaposition of these elements.

Another interesting aspect of this realisation is that the Latin is pronounced as it would have been pronounced in pre-Great Vowel Shift England.

Everyone should have a copy of this CD - though I think that it can still be heard on youtube.
______________________________________________

I must say that Jared's observations are acute, perspicatious, and near indisputable.

.

Jared is correct -

The Messe de Notre Dame remains the first mass cycle composed as a unified whole by one given composer, Guillaume de Machaut, musician and poet. Earlier cycles* are each compilations of individual works written in several styles by several anonymous composers over a period of some years. In this they are like the individual chants of the Gregorian repertory which are grouped arbitrarily into the various mass cycles that appear in LU and GR.

*e.g., Toulouse, Tournai, Sorbonne, et al.

I have read the comments on polyphonic vs. chant ordinary with great interest and would like to comment on several issues. First of all, please look for the forthcoming summer issue of Sacred Music, where Jared Ostermann makes his case for polyphonic propers, to which I make brief reference in the editorial.

Jared is quite right that the judgment about the use of the music should be principally about its liturgical function. This will be an individual judgment concerning the practice of a particular church or congregation, and the choice will differ widely from congregation to congregation, depending on history, ability, receptivity and any other factors.

I would add that the principal music and the paradigm of liturgical function is Gregorian chant. The Ordinary of the Mass can be sung in chant by the congregation, since there are settings of varying difficulty and since they are repeated from Sunday to Sunday, so that the congregation can become familiar with them. Moreover, these movements are the liturgical action in themselves, and generally not the accompaniment of other actions, such as processions as in the case of the introit, or readings in the case of the gradual; it is thus most appropriate for them to be sung by the congregation. The Proper of the Mass in full Gregorian chant must be sung by a choir, since to learn five relatively difficult chants for each Sunday is impossible for a congregation and even difficult for a choir. It is an over-simplification that chant was not sung during the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries; the Medicean versions were far from the only ones employed. Theodore Karp has published an extensive study of the post-Tridentine Mass Proper (2 vols, 2005), showing a wide cultivation of the singing of chant. Most of these books show a much greater continuity with the traditional chants than do the Medicean versions. Madorganist is correct that the history of congregational singing is extensive; I recall an account given by Jungmann (Mass of the Roman Rite) of an attempt to suppress the congregational singing of the Credo, which resulted widespread objection from the congregation.

Concerning the use of the polyphonic ordinary, I would refer to the exchange between Jared and me in Sacred Music for Spring and Summer 2015 (which can be accessed on musicasacra.com). Historically, the polyphonic ordinary had a very strong place in the liturgy over many centuries. We must recognize, however, that this was mainly in cathedrals and courtly chapels; the performance of chant was certainly very much more frequent than polyphony. The polyphonic ordinary seems to have developed in the fourteenth century; there is a substantial repertory of individual Mass movements from this period. Machaut’s Mass is simply one of this kind, individual movements of his assembled for a liturgical purpose: a votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin for Saturdays. It was only in the fifteenth century that the cyclic ordinary was developed, in which the five movements of the ordinary are all in the same mode and upon the same musical material. The subsequent history of the polyphonic ordinary includes some of the greatest monuments of Western musical history, far more extensive than propers, Magnificats, hymns, etc. Its continued use for many centuries is a witness to its liturgical suitability, though far from the only witness pro or con. The council’s mention of the treasure of sacred music, which is to be fostered, does include polyphonic music, it says so explicitly. The majority of this music is the Ordinary of the Mass. This strongly suggests its employment in the liturgy.

Concerning Musicam sacram deprecating the exclusion of the congregation in the singing of the whole ordinary and proper: I would argue that when the choir sings the five movements of the ordinary and the five propers, the congregation is not entirely excluded in the singing. They make all the responses and sing together the Lord’s Prayer. In a sense the Lord’s Prayer has been made a part of the ordinary of the Mass by being prescribed for singing by the whole congregation. This may seem a sophistical argument and not in accord with Musicam sacram, but my point goes further. On the basis of the practice I have developed with my own choir, the congregation sings the ordinary, six different cycles, nearly fifty Sundays a year; on high feast days, the choir sings an entire polyphonic ordinary. The fact that the congregation has regularly been singing these texts in Latin means that they are intimately familiar with them and can identify with their being sung polyphonically. This does not deprive them of participation but enriches it. Members of the congregation have confirmed this.

The exclusive use of a choral ordinary is a different matter. Jared concedes its use at a place like St. Agnes in St. Paul, where the orchestral masses are sung every Sunday and Holy Day, except Advent and Lent, and in the summer. Musicam Sacram does authorize choirs that have their own special repertories, which must be sung “according to their own traditions norms.” Before the council, a choral ordinary was often sung in parish churches, and the chant propers were simply sung to psalm tones. In this case the choral ordinary had nearly crowded out the proper.

Jared’s new article concerns polyphonic propers. Here I have some reservations. When the Vatican documents give Gregorian chant “first place,” it is for chants, not just for texts, and these chants suit their liturgical function musically. To find any setting of the text is not the same as to employ the authentic Gregorian chant. It is true, the use of polyphonic music for the proper introduces the possibility of elegant, sophisticated, even beautiful music as a complement to the congregational ordinary in chant. I have performed polyphonic proper movements of the Notre Dame School, of Dufay, Isaac, Byrd, Palestrina, Lasso, and Gallus, and sometimes a complete cycle of polyphonic propers, e.g., from the Byrd Gradualia or the Isaac Choralis Constantinus. Yet when it comes to choosing which to sing, I often say, we can’t eliminate the chant introit Viri Galilaei on Ascension or the Pentecost communion Factus est repente. A strong argument for chant propers as opposed to polyphonic propers is that the style of each chant proper is distinguished by its liturgical purpose. The neumatic style of an introit projects a sense of purposeful motion, the melismatic style of a gradual elicits recollection, meditation This will not be true when propers are selected from the general repertory of available pieces, which were not always written as propers. Even the propers in the Byrd Gradualia do not distinguish liturgical function by style, since the same polyphonic composition serves as an offertory in one set and a gradual in another. Moreover, to find settings of the proper texts, one must rely mainly upon pieces which were not composed as propers. That being said, I would relish attending the Mass Jared describes, for it aims to integrate musical and liturgical purposes.

Jared -
You hit upon several factors that go into the choices of chant-polyphony marriages. Your idea of simple chant being complimented by simple polyphony, or complex by complex is spot on. I would suggest as a third option, namely, that a syllabic or mildly neumatic chant could be complimented by more complex polyphony, or vice versa. The contrast could in itself show off the nature and beauty of each. Whichever option one chooses should at least be informed by a conscious deliberation of the aesthetic which you have outlined. The nature of the celebration itself (and the precise music which one is considering) would serve to suggest the proper course.