That is a valid point.

My goal was not as much to question the form of music in the Mass, but the style and hierarchy.

*Relatedly: based on Musicam Sacram's order of importance, ought we to chant/sing all of the Order and Kyriale before we introduce the Graduale? I recognize that it is easier to have trained singers singing at the processions before teaching a congregation the Credo, but isn't the latter more important?

As Msgr. Richard Schuler has ably documented, the abandonment of Latin and the propers chants (or their effective prohibition where they were not being done already) and the proliferation of "folk"-style songs and other sub-par music was the result of deliberate action on the part of bishop's conferences as well as individual dioceses. This is one reason why people are incredulous that these changes were all a mistake since the orders came from "above."

As Msgr. Schuler writes, "In the name of actuosa participatio, guitar players, various combos, folk-singers and even grade school children undertook to write and perform music for church, providing both texts and notes. That such ineptitude and ignorance, albeit sincere, could have taken hold of a serious and sacred sector of life, the worship of God, can only be explained by reference to the direction given from the central authority in the country. The phenomenon was witnessed in all parts of the country; it came from a common source. That source was the Music Advisory Board of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy."

@matthewj: Especially good policy since I can't imagine "permanent" deacons have much liturgical say, and would thus feel as helpless as we musicians to make the needed corrections.

I am curious if anyone has had particular success explaining to parishioners and singers that we have been misled or in error for this period. Has it worked to adjust views on chant and sacred music?

@Liam, I like that approach.

I often speak of "the Church," which I understand instinctively, but I wonder if it does not mean as much or the same to some of the people with whom I have spoken.

it must be stated clearly and unambiguously that the mess we see all around us is in large part the result of the willful disobedience of those wished to change the Church's worship from theocentric to anthropocentric.

I am learning so much here. THIS is what I have understood intuitively my entire life, though I have never been able to articulate it. This is a major part of why I am so turned off by post-Vatican II music in general, and why I have resisted and resented the lectures and decrees of "liturgical ministers" and "music ministers" at both the diocesan and parish levels for decades.

This is one reason why people are incredulous that these changes were all a mistake since the orders came from "above" . . . . "That source was the Music Advisory Board of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy."

And THIS, which I first learned about in an old thread somewhere on this forum, makes me angry. I have been arguing for years that it was a mistake to pretend that the 500-year musical history and tradition no longer existed after 1970. Why throw it all away? Yet I heard this recently from my organist when I asked if we could sing "Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones" instead of "All My Days" on All Souls: she said, "but it's so old!" As if that was an inherently bad thing! How does one counteract this postmodernist narrative?

(N.B. Fortunately, this organist cheerfully allows me to set parameters for musical choices, at least when I am cantoring--so far only at non-Sunday liturgies--because I explained that I don't know many of the newer songs that she just assumed I know. I gave her a list of "my old-fashioned hymns"--all the traditional hymns in our hymnal, saying that these are the ones it is safe to assume I know. Because while yes, I can sight-read most of the newer songs, or learn them via youtube or in three minutes at the organ with her before mass--why should I have to stress over that when there are so many beautiful traditional choices that I already know?)

Anyway, learning that all this nonsense comes from a Bishops' Committee that was never formally adopted or even voted upon, and that most of it is in actual contradiction to the promulgations of Vatican II, really makes me feel cheated. Especially since the USCCB has been used as the support for the decrees of liturgical ministers whenever I have raised questions. If only I'd known I could trump them with Vatican II documents!

Thank you, I'll add it to my reading list.

How did this turn into a job??

How did this turn into a job??

Think of it more as a magnificent obsession.