Liturgical Music: Official Guidlines

[anfcatholic.com]

There are a lot of posts about music during Mass and many times the recommendation given is to read the Chuch’s official documents. I would like those who have read these documents to quote them and make their case for what should and shouldn’t be used during the liturgy based strictly on these official Church documents. Also, maybe it would be nice if you could explain how authoritative the document is that you are quoting.

 

[benedictgal]

There are a lot of posts about music during Mass and many times the recommendation given is to read the Chuch’s official documents. I would like those who have read these documents to quote them and make their case for what should and shouldn’t be used during the liturgy based strictly on these official Church documents. Also, maybe it would be nice if you could explain how authoritative the document is that you are quoting.

Since I take it this question is in reference to me, I will explain.

The documents that I use are:

Musicam Sacram
adoremus.org/MusicamSacram.html

Tra le Sollecitudini - Pope Pius X
adoremus.org/TraLeSollecitudini.html

Sacramentum Caritatis - Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Exhortations
adoremus.org/SacramentumCaritatis.html

Chirograph on Sacred Music - Pope John Paul II
adoremus.org/Chirograph-SacredMusic.html

INSTRUMENTUM LABORIS - From the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

These documents are issued by the Supreme Pontiffs themselves either on their own or through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In other words, they come straight from the Holy See. You can’t get more authoritative than that.

In the case of Pope Benedict XVI, much of what he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger, has come to fruition now that he is Supreme Pontiff. His pre-papal writings certainly make solid cases and are based on his theological work, his experience as a classically trained musician and on the documents. You can’t go wrong with him as a definitive source.

 

[anfcatholic.com]

benedictgal

Since I take it this question is in reference to me, I will explain.

I did have you in mind as one who had referred to such documents but not the only one. Thank you for the links to the documents, would you be willing to take the time to quote from them individually showing how they teach what you believe?

 

[benedictgal]

Let’s look first at Sacramentum Caritatis, since this is the most recent statement made by Pope Benedict XVI on the matter:

Liturgical song

1. In the ars celebrandi, liturgical song has a pre-eminent place. (126) Saint Augustine rightly says in a famous sermon that “the new man sings a new song. Singing is an expression of joy and, if we consider the matter, an expression of love” (127). The People of God assembled for the liturgy sings the praises of God. In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. **Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129). **Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed (130) as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy (131).

The key statement is what I highlighted and bolded in red. See, now, how it matches up with what he wrote in Spirit of the Liturgy:

Then there are two developments in music itself that have their origins primarily in the West but that for a long time have affected the whole of mankind in the world culture that is being formed. Modern so-called “classical” music has maneuvered itself, with some exceptions, into an elitist ghetto, which only specialists may enter – and even they do so with what may sometimes be mixed feelings. The music of the masses has broken loose from this and treads a very different path.

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. “Rock”, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments.

What is to be done? Theoretical solutions are perhaps even less helpful here. There has to be renewal from within.

There is consistency here in what he wrote as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and what he wrote in SC. The dots connect. Taking these two statements together, one can certainly make a case that there needs to be a standard in sacred music. Unfortunately, as I see it (and have, unfortunately heard it), none exists at the present time.

Even the USCCB, in its power point on Music in the Liturgy, makes this point:

Individual songs should be consonant with Catholic teaching and free from theological error

The repertoire of liturgical songs in any given setting should not manifest a collective bias against Catholic theological elements.

It points back to the obvious.

 

[benedictgal]

From the same powerpoint on music, the USCCB noted several concerns:

Is there a sufficient attention to the Trinity and to the Trinitarian structure of Catholic beliefs and teachings? Do our liturgical songs fail at times to present the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian faith? Does the language used in referring to the Persons of the Trinity contribute at times to a lack of clarity? Is there a reluctance to use “Father” for the first person of the Blessed Trinity? Is the relationship between Jesus and the Father stressed sufficiently? Are there times when the word “God” is placed in a sentence where one would expect to find “Father” or “God the Father” since the reference is precisely to the relationship between the first and second persons of the Trinity?

Here are some more:

Is there an obscured presentation of the centrality of Christ in salvation history and an insufficient emphasis on the divinity of Christ? Do our liturgical songs present Jesus as the culmination of the Old Testament and the fulfillment of God’s plan for our salvation? Is the indispensable place of the incarnation in the plan of salvation sufficiently presented? Is Jesus the Savior often overshadowed by Jesus the teacher, model, friend, and brother? Is there an appropriate balance? Is there an imbalance in our emphasis on the humanity or divinity of Jesus Christ? At times, can we detect a negative undertone in speaking of the divine nature of Christ, as if divinity is equated with being “distant and unreal.”

And more:

An indistinct treatment of the ecclesial context of Catholic beliefs and magisterial teachings?

Do the texts give insufficient emphasis to God’s initiative in the world with a corresponding overemphasis on human action?

Is there a sufficient recognition of the transforming effects of grace?

I submit that these would all make a good litmus test for us to use when deciding on a song’s suitability for the Mass.

 

[japhy]

I would like those who have read these documents to quote them and make their case for what should and shouldn’t be used during the liturgy based strictly on these official Church documents. Also, maybe it would be nice if you could explain how authoritative the document is that you are quoting.

I will provide a few quotes from these documents.

1903: Instruction Tra la sollecitudini of Pope Pius X:1. Sacred music, being a complementary part of the solemn liturgy, participates in the general scope of the liturgy, which is the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. It contributes to the decorum and the splendor of the ecclesiastical ceremonies, and since its principal office is to clothe with suitable melody the liturgical text proposed for the understanding of the faithful, its proper aim is to add greater efficacy to the text, in order that through it the faithful may be the more easily moved to devotion and better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace belonging to the celebration of the most holy mysteries.

1. Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality. …
2. These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church… On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian 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. … Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.
3. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. …1928: Instruction on Divine Worship Divini Cultus of Pope Pius XI:In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies, or when pious sodalities take part with the clergy in a procession, they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the Liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed. If this is done, then it will no longer happen that the people either make no answer at all to the public prayers – whether in the language of the Liturgy or in the vernacular – or at best utter the responses in a low and subdued manner.1958: Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy De Musica Sacra of the Sacred Congregation of Rites:5. Gregorian chant, which is used in liturgical ceremonies, is the sacred music proper to the Roman Church; it is to be found in the liturgical books approved by the Holy See. This music has been reverently, and faithfully fostered, and developed from most ancient, and venerable traditions; and even in recent times new chants have been composed in the style of this tradition. This style of music has no need of organ or other instrumental accompaniment.
4. Gregorian chant is the music characteristic of the Roman Church. Therefore, its use is not only permitted, but encouraged at all liturgical ceremonies above all other styles of music, unless circumstances demand otherwise.

25b. … Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. …1963: Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican II:54. … Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited proprium: “proper to; particular to”] to the Roman Liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place principem locum: “principal place”] in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
2. The editio typica of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by Saint Pius X. It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

 

[anfcatholic.com]

benedictgal:

Sacramentum Caritatis

Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided. As an element of the liturgy, song should be well integrated into the overall celebration (128). Consequently everything – texts, music, execution – ought to correspond to the meaning of the mystery being celebrated, the structure of the rite and the liturgical seasons (129).

…one can certainly make a case that there needs to be a standard in sacred music. Unfortunately, as I see it (and have, unfortunately heard it), none exists at the present time.

So it appears to me that the Church esteems Gregorian Chant but certainly doesn’t rule out other kinds of music in the liturgy. The Church recognizes that some music isn’t as good as others and has some guidelines (does it fit with the mystery of the liturgy, the structure of the rite, and the season?). But there aren’t detailed and specific norms for what is and is not okay? The Church doesn’t have an official position about songs that use “me” and “we” more than God? Or whether using secular songs is acceptable?

 

[benedictgal]

So it appears to me that the Church esteems Gregorian Chant but certainly doesn’t rule out other kinds of music in the liturgy. The Church recognizes that some music isn’t as good as others and has some guidelines (does it fit with the mystery of the liturgy, the structure of the rite, and the season?). But there aren’t detailed and specific norms for what is and is not okay? The Church doesn’t have an official position about songs that use “me” and “we” more than God? Or whether using secular songs is acceptable?

Here is what the USCCB powerpoint noted when it surveyed some 20 most popular liturtgical songs :

Christological? Only 35% of the songs referred to Christ

Names for God: The first question asked in examining the songs was what names they used to refer to God. Here a full range of biblical titles were used, though “Father” was used only 10% of the time.

Trinitarian structure? None of the songs referred to the three persons of the Blessed Trinity or utilized a “Trinitarian structure.”

If you are looking for specific, clear-cut do’s and do not’s, you may not have much luck. However, the CDWDS was supposed to have released a document on sacred music (this was told directly to me by the now-former secretary to the CDWDS, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjnith). However, due to changes in the administration of the CDWDS, I imagine that it will either come out in the next couple of months or early next year.

I raised these points to him and he concurred that what we have right now, as far as music is concerned, is problematic. The document should be able to allay some of those concerns.

 

[japhy]

Or whether using secular songs is acceptable?

Why would a secular song be used at Holy Mass? I’m not even a fan of patriotic songs (even those which mention “God”) being sung at Mass.

What should be sung at Mass is the “propers”. There are not hymns, these are Gregorian chants that are set for every individual Mass. But almost no one knows about them or hears them. The propers of the Mass have been almost completely replaced by hymns chosen by the organist or music directory or liturgy team.

 

[Don9of11]

What should be sung at Mass is the “propers”. There are not hymns, these are Gregorian chants that are set for every individual Mass.

I think there needs to be a good mix of both old and new. While I am not in favor of all modern hymns, I am not willing to chuck everything and start singing Gregorian Chants every Sunday. There are many catholic hymns that are very beautiful and very sacred and they are not all Latin either. There appears to be plenty of guidelines for musicians, composers, writers, etc. to follow. In my opinion the church leaders, those who oversee these kinds of things, have been permissive over the years regarding how those guidelines are interpreted. There is certainly a need for change.

 

[japhy]

I think there needs to be a good mix of both old and new. While I am not in favor of all modern hymns, I am not willing to chuck everything and start singing Gregorian Chants every Sunday. There are many catholic hymns that are very beautiful and very sacred and they are not all Latin either.

The Gregorian propers can certainly be supplemented with Latin or vernacular hymns, and there’s always the recessional (for which there is no liturgically prescribed music). Honestly, I’d be happy if we started with the Latin Ordinary (Kyrie [Greek], Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) first. Throw in the dialogues too, and maybe even the Pater Noster!

 

[Newbie2]

Why would a secular song be used at Holy Mass? I’m not even a fan of patriotic songs (even those which mention “God”) being sung at Mass.

What should be sung at Mass is the “propers”. There are not hymns, these are Gregorian chants that are set for every individual Mass. But almost no one knows about them or hears them. The propers of the Mass have been almost completely replaced by hymns chosen by the organist or music directory or liturgy team.

Perhaps for good reason? Sure, there are those who would flock to mass to hear Gregorian chants, but probably more woud leave. Just think, I say with heavy sarcasm, of the numbers of young people and teens that would stampede into Mass every week to hear Gregorian chants.

This is one area where the Church needs to be somewhat mindful of the times…and that seems to be reflected in what the bishops have been allowing as far as liturgical music. I’m not suggesting that the Church bend to every musical fad that comes down the road, but I hope you’re not suggesting that we go back to the Gregorian chant as the musical liturgical norm.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I think there needs to be a good mix of both old and new. While I am not in favor of all modern hymns, I am not willing to chuck everything and start singing Gregorian Chants every Sunday. There are many catholic hymns that are very beautiful and very sacred and they are not all Latin either. There appears to be plenty of guidelines for musicians, composers, writers, etc. to follow. In my opinion the church leaders, those who oversee these kinds of things, have been permissive over the years regarding how those guidelines are interpreted. There is certainly a need for change.

You are not willing? That doesn’t sound like a very good attitude to have…it has a very “non servium” ring to it.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Perhaps for good reason? Sure, there are those who would flock to mass to hear Gregorian chants, but probably more woud leave. Just think, I say with heavy sarcasm, of the numbers of young people and teens that would stampede into Mass every week to hear Gregorian chants.

This is one area where the Church needs to be somewhat mindful of the times…and that seems to be reflected in what the bishops have been allowing as far as liturgical music. I’m not suggesting that the Church bend to every musical fad that comes down the road, but I hope you’re not suggesting that we go back to the Gregorian chant as the musical liturgical norm.

Gregorian Chant IS the liturgical norm! (Unfortunately people are abusing the Church’s wishes and not following that norm.)

The Mass isn’t entertainment. If they are coming because of the music and not for God, their parents and priest have failed miserably in educating them in the Faith.

I just have to shake my head in disappointment at the vast misunderstanding of Catholics with regards to the Mass (as well as the Faith in general).

Side note: I know many young people are coming to the Latin Mass in our area due to the reverence and Gregorian Chant.

 

[benedictgal]

Gregorian Chant IS the liturgical norm! (Unfortunately people are abusing the Church’s wishes and not following that norm.)

The Mass isn’t entertainment. If they are coming because of the music and not for God, their parents and priest have failed miserably in educating them in the Faith.

I just have to shake my head in disappointment at the vast misunderstanding of Catholics with regards to the Mass (as well as the Faith in general).

Side note: I know many young people are coming to the Latin Mass in our area due to the reverence and Gregorian Chant.

It is really sad, especially after document after document has stated the primacy of Gregorian Chant.

Even Pope John Paul II, whom many have sadly mischaracterized as allowing just about any form of music into the Mass wrote this:

In this regard St Pius X pointed out - using the term universal - a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[16]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.

1. Among the musical expressions that correspond best with the qualities demanded by the notion of sacred music, especially liturgical music, Gregorian chant has a special place. The Second Vatican Council recognized that “being specially suited to the Roman Liturgy”[17] it should be given, other things being equal, pride of place in liturgical services sung in Latin[18]. St Pius X pointed out that the Church had “inherited it from the Fathers of the Church”, that she has “jealously guarded [it] for centuries in her liturgical codices” and still “proposes it to the faithful” as her own, considering it “the supreme model of sacred music”[19]. Thus, Gregorian chant continues also today to be an element of unity in the Roman Liturgy.

Like St Pius X, the Second Vatican Council also recognized that “other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations”[20]. It is therefore necessary to pay special attention to the new musical expressions to ascertain whether they too can express the inexhaustible riches of the Mystery proposed in the Liturgy and thereby encourage the active participation of the faithful in celebrations[21].

…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[/COLOR]]. 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”[35].

In his Chirograph on Sacred Music, Pope John Paul II extolled the virtues of Gregorian Chant. His successor, Pope Benedict, has taken it up several notches by having the propers and antiphons chanted. He has even had a good chunk of the music at the Papal Masses at St. Peter’s, the Lateran Basilica and St. Paul’s, chanted.

 

[japhy]

Just think, I say with heavy sarcasm, of the numbers of young people and teens that would stampede into Mass every week to hear Gregorian chants.

Unless there are statistics, I couldn’t say. The solution, of course, is not to just switch to Gregorian chant and expect people to like it. Catechesis is necessary. Teach the people about the chant, what is being said, why it’s being said, what it means, etc. Exert a little bit of effort.

I hope you’re not suggesting that we go back to the Gregorian chant as the musical liturgical norm.

Gregorian Chant IS the liturgical norm!

Thank you, EENS. That is exactly what I was going to say.

Gregorian chant is the canon, the rule by which all forms of music are measured for determining their sacredness. And it is not simply a ruler to be used for measurement’s sake, but it is to be employed in the liturgy. There are simple Gregorian chants for the Ordinary that any parish could learn in just a few weeks. 1974’s Jubilate Deo of Pope Paul VI is a small compendium of chants that he expected could be used universally without trouble.

Of course, the problem with Gregorian chant (as with Latin) is that they’ve been out of use for some time now. They appear discredited, washed up, abandoned, banned even. And so there are fewer people who know them and can teach them adequately to others. It’s a negative feedback loop, a vicious cycle. Thank God there has been a restoration of sacred music in the past few years preventing this treasure of inestimable value from being utterly lost to the annals of “tradition” (since we know how fondly people think of that).

 

[Don9of11]

You are not willing? That doesn’t sound like a very good attitude to have…it has a very “non servium” ring to it.

I am saying we need to preserve both forms of music. For lack of a better vernacular The modern and The old. There is no reason why both can’t exist and be made to complement one another. I don’t think you can just dismiss one form for another. I fee what the Church needs to do is to start policing it’s own musical guidelines.

 

[Newbie2]

Gregorian Chant IS the liturgical norm! (Unfortunately people are abusing the Church’s wishes and not following that norm.)

The Mass isn’t entertainment. If they are coming because of the music and not for God, their parents and priest have failed miserably in educating them in the Faith.

I just have to shake my head in disappointment at the vast misunderstanding of Catholics with regards to the Mass (as well as the Faith in general).

Side note: I know many young people are coming to the Latin Mass in our area due to the reverence and Gregorian Chant.

Wait a minute…let’s define “norm”. What documentation is there that says we should be using the Gregorian chant at mass?

I agree that mass is not for entertainment. However, I don’t think we should so easily dismiss music as one of the reasons for coming to mass. If “good music” or “good hymns” are the reason that ***some ***people come to mass, is it better for those people to stay home if they think the Gregorian chants are “boring”? (And please don’t say that they need to conform themselves to get used to such music…realistically, that’s not going to happen for them)

Now if they are offered during the latin masses, fine. I don’t like the suggestion that others have made (not necessarily in this thread) that every mass should be celebrated with the GC.

And let’s not judge whether or not “their parents and priest have failed miserably in educating them in the Faith”…whether or not some kid or adult prefers different music has little to do whether they’re properly catechized.

 

[japhy]

Wait a minute…let’s define “norm”. What documentation is there that says we should be using the Gregorian chant at mass?

We should be using Gregorian chant at the Mass, because Gregorian chant is the music proper to the Roman Rite. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman Rite, and so it should have the principal place in the liturgy. While other forms of sacred music are admissible, Gregorian chant should be given primacy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116) So yes, we should be using Gregorian chant at Mass. That’s what Gregorian chant was made for. Gregorian chant is the “proper” (particular to the Rite) setting of the liturgical texts (order and propers) to music. If you’re not going to use Gregorian chant, the least you can do is sing the liturgical texts of the Mass in some other sacred style, rather than replace them altogether with hymns.

There are simple Gregorian chants for the order of the Mass that parishes could be using in less than a month if pastors and musical directors would learn humility (to use the music proper to the Church) and obedience (to Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, esp. articles 36.1, 54, and 116), and take a few easy steps toward giving their parishes the liturgical instruction that Vatican II said is necessary.

whether or not some kid or adult prefers different music has little to do whether they’re properly catechized.

But whether a child or adult knows what the Church says about music (esp. Gregorian chant) has a lot to do with whether they were ever told what Vatican II really said.

 

[Newbie2]

We should be using Gregorian chant at the Mass, because Gregorian chant is the music proper to the Roman Rite. The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman Rite, and so it should have the principal place in the liturgy. While other forms of sacred music are admissible, Gregorian chant should be given primacy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116) So yes, we should be using Gregorian chant at Mass. That’s what Gregorian chant was made for. Gregorian chant is the “proper” (particular to the Rite) setting of the liturgical texts (order and propers) to music. If you’re not going to use Gregorian chant, the least you can do is sing the liturgical texts of the Mass in some other sacred style, rather than replace them altogether with hymns.

There are simple Gregorian chants for the order of the Mass that parishes could be using in less than a month if pastors and musical directors would learn humility (to use the music proper to the Church) and obedience (to Vatican II’s Constitution on the Liturgy, esp. articles 36.1, 54, and 116), and take a few easy steps toward giving their parishes the liturgical instruction that Vatican II said is necessary.

But whether a child or adult knows what the Church says about music (esp. Gregorian chant) has a lot to do with whether they were ever told what Vatican II really said.

I’m saying that for those people to whom the music really matters, perhaps even over the real reason they should be at mass, whether or not they know what is taught through Vatican II is probably irrelevant to them.

As far as what you referenced:

**116. **The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.

But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.

“…rather than replace them altogether with hymns” doesn’t seem to be consistant with what’s written above.

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

Doesn’t mention singing or chanting here.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

There ya go. Aparently the Bishops in the US don’t see the use of Latin or of GCs to be of any “great advantage to the people”.

Don’t get me wrong, I like GCs. But we’re in a tiny minority of most US Catholics, methinks.