From the GIRM for the USA:

47. When the people are gathered, and as the Priest enters with the Deacon and ministers, the Entrance Chant begins. Its purpose is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical time or festivity, and accompany the procession of the Priest and ministers.

48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).

Yes. Just not the way you'd prefer.

Liam, when you ask whether it's required, what action are you asking about?

The chant is required, except that it's not.

Yup. And to call "Praise to the Lord"/Stralsund an "entrance chant" is to call a cat a dog.

Don't get me wrong: I like PTTL a lot!! But it's not Chant.

I asked, Liam, because I wanted to get an understanding of the question in the thread title.

cognate crutch to "cantus"

"Song" works better, of course. Another case of over-thinking from the cognoscenti.

The confusion is what constitutes 'something else suitable'. I used to be of the opinion that whatever was in the hymnal (whichever hymnal was used at the church I was at) would be suitable. The more I learned about sacred music, the more I came to realize that many of the pieces in most hymnals, including many of my favorite pieces, are wholly inappropriate for the Mass. So, as in most things Catholic, nothing is as simple as we either think or want it to be. Nothing with a two thousand year history can be.

You make this more complicated than it needs to be.

No, dear Sponsa: the "reformers" made it more complicated than it needs be. Here on Earth, we're trying to reconcile their "reforms" with "reality." Not that easy to do.

by competent ecclesiastical authority

Ecclesiastical authority, yes. Competent? Errmmmmnnnn......

Sure!! Bugnini & Co. were "competent." But in the wrong direction. Writing a Mass on a cocktail napkin while pleasanty plotzed.......errmmmmmmmmmnnnnn

Dad, et al,

"Competent" doesn't mean "highly" or even "adequately skilled" in this context.

Competent
i) (of a person) efficient and capable.
"a highly competent surgeon"
ii) acceptable and satisfactory, though not outstanding.
"she spoke quite competent French"
iii) (of a court or other body) accepted as having legal authority to deal with a particular matter.

One of the problems with the papacy, especially from an eastern perspective, is that there is no longer an emperor to yank the pope's chain when he wanders too far.

The last emperor in the east would have been in the 1500-1600 era. I would say the emperors in the east lost power for any practical purpose in the west by the 9-10th century, or so it seems to me. As late as the 20th century, Franz Joseph of Austria overturned the election of a pope, which he had a right to do. This allowed Pius X to become pope.

The development of the papacy into a semi-divine monarchy is a later invention. It was not good for the papacy, the church, or the state. Thankfully, we have overcome that, although it seems the papacy is now driving itself into irrelevancy (do I hear ultramontanny screams of anguish in the background?)

No not the early 1800's. Blessed Karl of Austria (beatified 2004); reigned 21 November 1916 – 11 November 1918 and in April 1919 formally dethroned by the Austrian Parliament .

I think the daughter of the last Byzantine emperor married the Russian Tsar. I remember that from somewhere. I was told that was their basis for Russia being the Third Rome.

Hapsburgs are still alive and well, But they lost the thrones of Austria and Hungary after World War I.

I have heard that blessing used for some of the bishops, as well.

The Hapsburgs exited in the very early 1800's.

Should have been clearer: they exited the position of "Holy Roman Emperor" at that time, but did, indeed, remain on the throne of Austro-Hungary until much later.

Interesting side-note: no one has yet spoken up "pro Papa"........