As I see it, I think the way forward is for musicians and pastors to direct their efforts toward beautifying, solemnizing, and celebrating the post-Conciliar Mass more in harmony with the Church's liturgical tradition and post-Conciliar liturgical norms. There are hardly any opportunities for Catholics to celebrate the Novus Ordo reverently and authentically.

In terms of music, that means, among other things, greater implementation of Gregorian and vernacular chanted Mass propers and settings of the Mass ordinary to replace song selection and Mass settings from among what OCP and GIA promote, and more frequent chanting by priests of the Mass dialogues and presidential prayers.

Here's an article from this past weekend about a success story in St. Louis:
https://adoremus.org/2023/02/poetry-of-the-mass-is-an-open-door-to-heaven-how-a-revitalized-liturgy-has-reenergized-a-st-louis-parish/

Here's a video of a homily by a cathedral pastor informing his parishioners about why they do what they do with music at Mass. It's an excellent 18-minute summary explanation of the Church's norms for music at Mass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CirvhwH2KUk&t=400s

Those are two examples of good work being done to revitalize parish celebrations of the post-Conciliar liturgy. I'm trying to do what I can along those lines in my own parish ministry.

What has gotten the Trads in trouble with Pope Francis is acting like a church within the church, a remnant of the true faith and "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those Novus Ordo folks." I am all for improving the NO with better music and more serious liturgy. Some of our priests need to realize they are not entertainers and stop acting like it. Throw out the glut of eucharistic prayers, and clean the mass up.

If TC and its subsequent "clarifications" had stopped at reaffirming that the norm is the OF and other 'forms' are exceptions with limited permission, and that the diocesan ordinary is responsible for overseeing this and has control, then I would have applauded. But the pettifogging details would prevent the practice (not uncommon in England) of one EF/TLM a month, an extra Low Mass on the First Friday, since it is in the parish church and involves bination. Regulation at this level by SCR was the bane of the 1570 rite, plus ça change.

I'm trying to understand how the Latin Mass stands in the way of what MarkB is recommending for the new rite. Are too many talented people working for the TLM when they could be making music for the Novus Ordo? (There's a grand total of about 75 apostolates of the FSSP and ICKSP out together in the US.) Are bishops now free from the distraction of the old rite so they can finally promote good music in the new? Would this mean an end of the liturgy wars and futile infighting so that we could all now pull things in the same direction?

From what I can see the end of the TLM would do nothing either to discourage sub-standard music or encourage better music in the new. We're still left with the same underlying issues with the music for the new rite whether the TLM is around or not. In fact, as I've seen first hand, the celebration of the older rite has often been a major impetus for improving the music in the new.

In other words, nothing gives me any reason to think that I would be able to do more traditional music in the new rite than I have been trying to do for the past 25 years. If anything, as ServiamScores suggests, there are as just as many roadblocks as ever, maybe more.

I think the more vocal TLM people should have celebrated the liturgy and kept their mouths shut. It was the squeaking wheels (Marshall, Prof. K) and such that attracted too much attention. Sometimes squeaking wheels don't get greased, they become annoying to the point they get replaced. As far as music goes, I agree the TLM may not make much difference in the average parish. Bad music existed when the TLM was the only mass.

Orders from US bishops restricting Latin are not a new phenomenon. Cdl Shehan of Baltimore issued an edict in 1967, as soon as the whole VO Mass was translated into English, forbidding any use of Latin at Mass by his diocesan clergy.

Francis, if you poke the bear needlessly, don't be shocked when he bites. Those two, Peter and Marshall, are not the only gadflies out there. There are others.

Stranger things have happened and worse will likely occur in the future, given current trends

I didn't say they were inconsequential, that was Francis. I think to get the attention they are getting, Rome must see them as a genuine threat.

Some think that it is a group of US bishops who perceive it as a threat, and that they managed to persuade Francis to this view. I have no idea. There seems to be a scatter across many countries of prelates who see "trads" as a serious problem. And a much larger number who do not. DDWDS seems to me to be as inept as SCR was. It is a problem with all bureaucracies (I spent 33 years in government service).

If the Lex Credendi of the New Mass is the same as the Old Mass, as we are taught, there's no reason to suppress it; it's just "a different way to worship", and that's good, right? "Unity", the stated reason, is a ruse, because there has been no attempt to suppress the Ordinariate, the Eastern rites, the rite of Zaire, or anything else. This should be brought to the attention of the Vatican; we should DEMAND that these other groups be brought into line. (St. Saul Chicagoensis, Regula quarta). Indeed, since some here think that those who note the differences between rites are at fault, we should get up in the grills of Eastern Rite Catholics who presume to flout the desired unity.

If my Mass is put to death, there are things I can do closer to home; I won't get paid, but that's not important to me. I would have to be convinced without doubt that Rome was in schism with historical Catholicism before I went SSPX, I think, and we aren't at all there yet, though we seem headed in that direction. I'm not personally interested, at my age, in applying the baculum labialis to the porcus. But everything I've written can be done under the Missal of Paul VI (yes, even those pesky ninefold Kyries). And I've written the first of a series of English anthems using texts bowdlerized from the old lectionary...which strikes me as a more substantive approach to "Making the New Rite better."

As for the new rescript, it sounds to me as more "We REALLY MEAN IT this time" than anything new. I doubt it will be enforced by the Pope.

CharlesW - Greek was used liturgically before Latin, I agree, but the Roman Canon may well be older than any other anaphora, since the lack of a clear epiclesis could be proof that it predates the clarifications of the role of the Holy Spirit. Of course the structure of the 1570 codification is far removed from the original. To quote Fortescue

whatever beauty interest or historic value, or dignity, the Roman rite ever had has been utterly destroyed by the uneducated little cads who run that filthy congregation at Rome

Hawkins, Christianity started in the east.

Way too much logic and common sense on this thread. You guys are trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make much sense.

Phil Lawler has a good take here.

The Vatican “carried out a detailed consultation of the bishops in 2020” regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. Although we’ve never seen the results of that consultation, Pope Francis determined that “the wishes expressed by the episcopate” called for a crackdown on traditionalism. But the bishops who wanted that crackdown can’t be trusted to do it themselves.

Pope Francis is acting to unify the Church—“to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion”—so he felt it necessary to take actions that will leave thousands of Catholics frustrated, angry, and dispirited. He wants to “reach out to the marginalized,” so he needs to marginalize traditionalist Catholics.

Even if you agree with the Holy Father's goals here, you have to admit this is a ham-handed, and in the final analysis, self-defeating way to go about it.

SS, I agree it all seems rather one-sided, doesn't it?

You can spill a lot of words here about this or that but the TLM communities that I know and have some relationship to are neither going away nor are they dying. On the whole, they are growing and the idiotic words of a Pope or the infamous and stupid Roche are not going to change that. Rather, they will grow despite the merciful words of Francis. Its business as usual and they, like me, await the biological solution. And it will come.....Fiat voluntas tua, Domine.

francis - an illustration (not exhaustive)
If a crowd of people starts t0 sing the national anthem of your country, and someone ostentatiously sits down and puts his hat on, you conclude that he is disassociating himself from the collective symbolic action. If the congregation at Ealing Abbey, or Westminster Cathedral started singing Credo III alternatim with the choir the celebrant would leave center stage, sit down and put his hat on. If the choir sang the whole Creed in some beautiful polyphony we would all sit down (though only the sacred ministers put hats on). I don't know what the intention behind the rubric was, but it conveyed that we the congregation had nothing to contribute. Our profession of belief was unimportant. Now of course the priest does invite us to pray that 'my sacrifice and yours' should be acceptable, but these words are deliberately said silently.
The whole of High Mass was designed on this same principle, the irrelevance of anything except the chantry mass.

Our practice is that the celebrant stand when the congregation are singing the Credo, or the Gloria, but when it is the choir alone, then it is very helpful at the celebrant stand for the space of time he requires to recite that part of the mass, after which he sits down.

Gamba,

Wow. Just wow. You've been taking cribbing lessons from His Holiness! I recognize the truth in what you wrote, but not the way you perceive it.

Of course the priest would do what he should do, saying the black and doing the red, because that's what is necessary to make the sacrifice pleasing to God. He's praying to God, doing the work he has been ordained to do, or at least part of it.

If the choir sang everything backwards, as you put it, the priest, if he were doing his office properly, would ignore the choir and read things in the correct order, propers, ordinary and the rest. If he modified his words or postures to suit the idiotic hypothetical you amusingly propose (for the purpose of exaggeration, I understand, because the behavior you describe is idiotic, and you're not) he would be failing in his most basic duty.

The 1570 text doesn't "care" about what the "people" are doing because it regulates not more than is absolutely necessary. To put it another way, it shows admirable restraint in what it regulates, allowing those not bound by strict laws to act according to right thinking custom or not to do so.

Decoration and bystanders....

I heard a sermon preached on this recently by a visiting priest. He noted that the 12th man (a football term, I guess, based on the fact that the Super Bowl figured prominently in his analogies) isn't sitting lazily back, but earnestly engaging in the action to the extent and in the manner proper for him. He might be praying to God for the priest, or asking Our Lady to help him (the layman in the pew) cope with a particularly difficult situation. He might be praying for the dead who need those prayers most of all. Since the rosary, prayed properly, leads us to deeper union with Christ, praying the rosary (as Pope Pius XII noted) at Mass isn't an evil to be prevented, but (my words, not His Holiness') an access port, an on ramp, a weigh station, to be recognized and left unmolested. Hence, "my sacrifice and yours".

If the choir does its job properly, it renders more evident the beauty of the Mass and assists in the increase of devotion of all present.

Back to Pope Pius XII for a moment: His Holiness asserted that it would be wrong-headed to insist that every person at Mass participate in the same way and to the same degree. Some of us have been raised in Catholic families and are now in our twilight years; others are new at this; some resisted grace mightily and are only recently reconciled; some are, perhaps, thinking more about the sins we wished we could commit but can't because of lack of opportunity; some are worrying about sick relatives... and so on.

And that is the crux of the matter.

More good things happening re: music in the reformed Mass done properly. This story is about the Diocese of Wichita's vision for music in the post-conciliar Mass.

https://catholicdioceseofwichita.org/cantors-musicians-gather-to-hear-about-the-diocesan-long-term-vision-for-sacred-music/

@MarkB

Curious...

At that event, what percentage of music is/was/will be sung in Latin?