First, Contemporary, I want to thank you for quoting church documents. It's clear that you have given this substantially more thought than the average worship leader (my impression, at any rate, is that many church musicians—contemporary or otherwise—haven't actually thought about this stuff all that much... I think the members of this forum are the exception rather than the rule). I appreciate you making appeals to legitimate sources rather than using the frustrating arguments that stem from mere opinions on aesthetics.

Clearly, the sort of issues we had in the 60s with priests not believing the teachings of the Church (even the real presence), and and a strategy of not stating any doctrinal teaching that might even possibly be unpopular, created major problems.

Sadly, I do not believe this to be merely a thing of the past. A previous associate pastor at the parish where I grew up once quipped, "you mean you actually believe in that cookie worship?" To my knowledge, this man is still in active ministry.

I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that contemporary music can't communicate the faith; the question is rather whether or not it has the qualities intrinsic to sacred music properly suited to the temple, and more to the point: corporate worship. This is why last week I was pressing the point that contemporary worship music is inherently secular in style (even you call it "contemporary").

An important distinction: There are two types of contemporary Christian music:
1. "Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)" - this is 90% of what gets played on Christian radio stations. It is basically Christian pop, and sometimes Christian Country or Christian Rock, or Christian whatever style of secular music is popular. Basically none of this is liturgically appropriate, and for the record, hardly anyone plays any of this stuff liturgically.
2. "Praise and Worship Music" or "Worship Music" - most of this music does not get played on the radio, although radio airplay does occur sometimes. Praise and worship music is written to be sung by congregations at church and to sound sacred.

The problem is, for the average person, there is no distinction. This, to me, is a bit like quibbling over which species of counterpoint a renaissance work employs. To the average person—musician even—it simply doesn't matter.

groups that try and lead worship music are often rag-tag groups of parishioners who are not formally musically trained, or only minimally so, and they typically have little-to-no theological or liturgical training. What does this mean? It means that they then try and sing this music in the style of #1. (More often than not, they want to sing #1, not just imitate it.) I have been to multiple churches and masses where these groups "perform". (I use this term deliberately.) Invariably there are guitars, drums, bass guitars playing through amps, and all the rest. Their frame of reference is that 90% you decry, so almost invariably, that becomes the music of the temple.

Invariably there are guitars, drums, bass guitars playing through amps, and all the rest.

I don't accept the premise that praise and worship music is secular in style. I agree that it has similar ingredients to some secular genres, but there are important differences that make praise and worship a distinct genre from any secular style.

Yet, to the general population, these rhythms are pretty intuitive.

sources can be quoted inaccurately or with the desire to give an air of credibility which the citer doesn't deserve based on how he used the source.

I simply fail to understand how this can be. It sounds exactly the same as secular ballads. The melodies are similar. The instrumentation is similar. The vocal styles are similar. The structure of the music (verses, refrains, vamps 2/3 of the way through, etc.) is the same. The manner of playing the instruments is the same (guitar strumming is identical. drumming is identical. etc.). The ONLY discernible difference is the subject matter of the text. That's it.

I'll grant that there are codified tropes to P&W music (they all start comically the same, half of them are in the same key, and you can often swap out one set of lyrics for another because the chord progressions are so simple and repetitive that they sound remarkably similar), but they are not different in essence from the secular style they imitate. It really is that simple. Perhaps you perceive it to be particularly religious since it is the primary form of music making that you do at church; but that just colors your perception of it from within.

From without, I'm telling you—and I haven't the faintest doubt that others here will back me up on this—this music strikes the ear as no different than anything else on the radio. For heaven's sake: listen to the beginning of the "better is one day" again. It is not only contemporary music, it's borderline rock.

So here I (B7sus) am to (E) worship here I am to (B/D#) bow down
Here I am to (E/G#) say that You’re my (A) God

I'll grant that there are codified tropes to P&W music (they all start comically the same, half of them are in the same key, and you can often swap out one set of lyrics for another because the chord progressions are so simple and repetitive that they sound remarkably similar)

JPII flat out said that the more music is inline with Gregorian chant, the more fit it is for the temple, and the further out of harmony it is, the less worthy of the temple it becomes. Full stop. Imitating secular music with guitars and drums and all the rest that comes with it is quite far from imitating gregorian chant. There's simply no wiggle room here. There just isn't.

If we give any credence to JPII's remarks about music savoring of Gregorian chant, there's just no getting around some glaring issues here.

12. With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it. Only an artist who is profoundly steeped in the sensus Ecclesiae can attempt to perceive and express in melody the truth of the Mystery that is celebrated in the Liturgy[34]. In this perspective, in my Letter to Artists I wrote: "How many sacred works have been composed through the centuries by people deeply imbued with the sense of mystery! The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers, either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God"

(This isn't a caricature; I've seen this with my own eyes on more than one occasion.)

The comparison of fog machines and incense makes me think we lack an basic understanding of sacrificial religion.

I think fog machines are kind of silly, but it seems like it serves a similar role for them that incense serves for us.

I was trying to follow, without prejudice, but this is where you lost me.

I laughed.