Papal Mass in DC (was it me or was the music crazy?)

[30miller]

My mom sang on the parish choir for about 40 years. She had a strong clear singing voice which served as one of the anchoring voices on the choir (as she was always told when she returned after she happened to miss a Sunday choir mass on occasion). She sang on a parish choir that sang from the choir loft in the church - not like the moderns who insist on being staged for their performance right next to the Altar of the Lamb so that they can be seen by all worshipers. Mom is not a blogger - so I will blog her opinion here which she shared with me when we talked about the D.C. papal mass - “It was horrid”.
Also, it’s no coincidence that the dramatic decline of the Church (attendance, actual belief in what the Church teaches, etc.) has taken place alongside the Novus Ordo Mass with it’s Modern Copywrited “musak”. Certain of the “musicians” in the Church like to portray themselves as bringing some indispensible element to the mass. Not true. Definitely. When I served early morning daily weekday masses in the early 60’s - 6:15 A.M. with NO music - they were way more devout and efficacious than a lot of the productions w/tunes that are put on now.
As Fr. Fessio has taught us on EWTN - when St. Augustine told us that to sing at mass was to pray twice he was talking about singing the actual prayers of the mass - i.e. chanting the prayers. Augustine was not talking about singing ditties to the tune of “Rosie McCann from the banks of the Bann, she’s the Star of the County Down” and other folk tunes. These have no place at mass whatsoever. But they are in the GIA and OCP “hymn” books and are used in my parish. Horrid. Or even worse - Haas and Haugen.
Some previous posters who claim that they are “musicians” and who clearly presume that any of us (who perhaps are musicians as well) who take the opinion that the D.C. mass was what it was - i.e. horrid - and say so are somehow torturing these “musicians” need to replay the mass on the net and watch Pope Benedict’s smile and his eyes light up when the great Placido Domingo unexpectedly showed up in the horrid sequence of songs, sounds of the jungle, and whatever else it was - Domingo sang Panis Angelicus. And despite his obvious age it still clearly brought the Pope back to life.

 

[MonFrere]

Your posts are extremely condescending, I and others on here who did not like The music have not said one negatvie thing about the ones who had no problem with it.

OK. You said the music was horrid! Al thought that comment may have been a bit harsh. You replied “Nope - not a bit harsh.” You seem to be saying that this isn’t uncharitable.

Try this. Tell your wife that the meal she worked hard to prepare for you was horrid. Then tell her not to take it personally; but indeed the meal was horrid.

I thought after comments like these I thought that Al needed a little boost for his hard work. Being a musician I know hearing a comment from another musician is especially encouraging.

Was I upset after reading your comments. Absolutely!! They were indeed harsh; especially after you repeated it not backing down a bit from your original comment. In fact, your comment amped up your displeasure.

YOU however have managed in several posts to sound soooo superior, to us underlins who are not fotunate enought to be as Intellectually music savy as you.

(no need for the comma after the word superior - underlings was not spelled correctly - typo on the word enough - no need to capitalize Intellectually - and savy is actually spelled savvy)

When I was making my comments I wanted to bring some of my expertise to the topic. I thought it would help. Both Al and I tried to make points that would help you broaden your perspective. So far no one has brought arguments against the points I made that really amounts to a counterpoint or counterargument. The “condescending” comment tells me you really have nothing to say constructive to the points I made. If you want my respect add something constructive to the dialogue.

No one, certainly not I have,treated Al uncharitably or been unkind to HIM!

I beg to differ. See comment above.

MonFrere

 

[MonFrere]

When I served early morning daily weekday masses in the early 60’s - 6:15 A.M. with NO music - they were way more devout and efficacious than a lot of the productions w/tunes that are put on now.

Yes, I also enjoy morning Mass where there’s no music. However, it is Novus Ordo.

But they are in the GIA and OCP “hymn” books and are used in my parish. Horrid. Or even worse - Haas and Haugen.

I’m certainly ready and willing to mothball Haugen’s Mass of Creation. However, singing almost anything for years and years wears thin. I don’t think EVERYTHING Haas and Haugen have written is bad. I just think the melodies are constructed in such a manner that they quickly wear thin. They become boring after continued use. Sort of like eating a whole meal of spanish rice.

But what we want to watch is that we don’t become too highbrow either. The Church loves the hymn - Immaculate Mary. That’s a very simple folklike melody. I take this as an example for me not too become critical of a melody just because it’s simple or facile. Everything doesn’t have to be profound.

Domingo sang Panis Angelicus. And despite his obvious age it still clearly brought the Pope back to life.

Yes, I thought Domingo was fantastic. However, someone on this thread thought it was too theatrical or too operatic. And just what are we to expect from one of the worlds premier operatic tenors? I also noticed the obvious affection that Domingo had for the Holy Father and the Holy Father had for Domingo. That was a pleasure to see. But there is ALWAYS going to be people who complain about music - any music - good or bad (horrid). But this is the point I was trying to make earlier this evening. The job of being a Church musician is pretty tough – people are ALWAYS going to complain about something. Musician need thick skin. I don’t think it is an accident that St. Cecilia, a martyr, is the patron saint of sacred musicians. We have to often sacrifice our pride to the unkind comments that often come our way.

MonFrere

 

[anamchara]

I just received this from the Papal Mass CHoir Director, fyi:

(Archbishop Wuerl) mentioned that the Pope gave him very positive reactions to the liturgy on two occasions after the Mass that day. And the Papal Master of Ceremonies, who travels with the Holy Father, was specific about the beauty and prayerfulness of the Liturgy as well.

If you watched EWTN this weekend or recorded their coverage of the Mass, you may have heard some negative comments by the anchor and his priest commentator… They were not present for the liturgy physically, but EWTN’s on-site commentator, Joan Lewis, who was actually at the stadium, was ecstatic about the music and wasn’t afraid to say so.

just food for thought.
Al

Thank you for posting this! This debate has been all over this forum. I thought the mass was inspired and beautifully done. I did not like the comentary on EWTN. I changed the channel to watch full coverage somewhere else.

 

[iblessem]

I have been a liturgical minister for over 30 years. I played a guitar in church as a teen in the late 60’s and early 70’s. I learned the songs of the Damiens, St. Louis Jesuits, Bob Hurd and Many others in NALR, sold to OCP and now we have OCP and Spirit & Song in our parish. There is some really good liturgical music by these guys, but it can be destroyed by poor musicians as easily as “Silent Night” or “Ave Maria” or a note missing organist. I have heard it all.

Guitars can be used prayfully, just as drums and percussion instruments in a prayful supportive way. But in 30 years and numerous masses I find that every musician will get complimented by several people and the 8th one will think the music is terrible. Many times when people have sung a terrible sounding meditation song that I accompanied, people willl come up and give them a big compliment, thereby encouraging poor musicianship and weak voices that distract rather than lift up. The opposite would be a great meditation that brought people to peace and prayer, but a person will complain it was too loud, or they couldn’t hear the words because the guitars were too loud. The young person gets discouraged because of the negative comments and quits coming to church music practice. Mean people do this!

Church music is soooooo political. Especially around Easter and Christmas when all the people who never attend mass come for their twice per year feel good session. It is then the American Idols join the group and want solos. They sing out of tune, they act like they are performing in the Palace, then they are gone.

Anyone who saw this Papal mass must remember all the politics that probably went on to get a spot. Remember years ago, Melendez the armless guitar player. Pope JPII kissed his feet. He is amazing and has made a career from that one moment. That probably motivated all those disjointed groups to perform and probably kill each other to get on.

Unfortunately, when big events happen our leaders forget about the guy/gal who stands up every Sunday at your parish and does a really good and faithful job prayerfully leading worship. Pastor “You know who” is just trying to please people playing politics and he knows the bigger offertory might pay some parish bills that have been around since last easter.

I think that is what happened, but I’m no prophet.

<"))))>< George

 

[harveyc]

I’m sorry for not taking the time to read all of the posts, I stopped at page 14. I’m not sure I’m supposed to be posting in this thread since one poster made comments that maybe I should be posting in another thread if I wasn’t terribly upset over the music. The poster described this thread as being for people that are upset over the music at the Mass in Washington. However, the original post is in the form of a question and I think my post fits as an answer.

My wife, son, and I celebrated Mass at Nationals Park and I thought it was very inspirational. I honestly don’t remember much about he music itself, I was focusing on the words being sung so that I could use these words as prayer. Unless I’m quite familiar with a song, I simply am unable to focus on the music and be praying at the same time.

I asked my wife about it and she said there had been some discussion about the songs at her Latin class last night but that these comments seemed to have had their basis in the comments from the EWTN commentators. I respect EWTN a great deal but it seems that they may have started a firestorm of criticism from their own comments. I wonder if they were focusing on the prayer or just “reporting” and not focusing on the more important thing (like Mary and Martha?). My wife did say that the singing of the Psalms did bother her though (she agrees with comments in post 84 or so) but, again, I did not really notice the music as I was focusing on the words.

The “performance” during the Eucharist did seem odd to me but I did not let it bother me a great deal. Communion did last a really long time and I guess the planners just felt they needed to do something during that long period of time. Personally, I would rather not have had it but Pope Benedict did not seem upset over it either. In post 156 someone wrote that the clapping was part of the song. My wife and I don’t believe that is the case. The only clapping we remember was in the form of applause. It seemed that the people that were clapping were in the minority and I really wonder if television coverage picked some things up and emphasized them more than what was apparent for those of us at the Mass itself.

In summary, the music may not have been great but I did not really notice it and it was not very distracting to me.

Now, on an off-topic comment, I thought I would mention the most troubling part of the Mass to me that may not have been apparent to many people at the Mass itself or those watching on television. As I mentioned, Communion lasted a long time. So long, in fact, that Mass ended before everyone had received the Blessed Sacrament. Our section was completed in a fairy short period of time (10 minutes) but I think some sections were still receiving Communion another 10 minutes later when the there were the concluding rites and I would think that there were still enough people in line that it took another 5-10 minutes for everyone to receive communion. I doubt the Holy Father could have missed this as he left the stadium directly below us (albeit 150 feet away) and I believe the bottom rows to his right were still in line. I might be mistaken as I was focusing on the Holy Father at that time.

I’ll watch the EWTN video when I get a chance.

 

[aloysiusg]

iblessem - one of the nice things about the various choirs is that they were formed from regular parishoners, for the most part. The Papal Choir had some ringers, but most of us were your regular, run-of-the-mill Sunday singers.

 

[HOEFP]

I need to be clearer on my comments about the liturgy. First of all, the Mass celebration at Nationals Park with the Holy Father, the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and 46,000 Catholic faithfull was most spiritually uplifting. The music as performed was masterful, all of it. My comments are directed toward the selections with respect to Roman norms and the vernacular. And, yes, there were some procedural problems but the graces poured out during that Eucharistic Celebration cannot be diminished by disagreement on music or procedural issues. I am sorry if I have caused any bad feelings with my comments as that was no my intent. May the Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us always.

 

[aloysiusg]

Hoefp - no harm, no foul.

 

[mom_of_ten]

In post 156 someone wrote that the clapping was part of the song. My wife and I don’t believe that is the cas

The “clapping as part of a song” was in the “Calypso-style” offertory song.

 

[Nordar]

OK. You said the music was horrid! Al thought that comment may have been a bit harsh. You replied “Nope - not a bit harsh.” You seem to be saying that this isn’t uncharitable.

Try this. Tell your wife that the meal she worked hard to prepare for you was horrid. Then tell her not to take it personally; but indeed the meal was horrid.

I thought after comments like these I thought that Al needed a little boost for his hard work. Being a musician I know hearing a comment from another musician is especially encouraging.

Was I upset after reading your comments. Absolutely!! They were indeed harsh; especially after you repeated it not backing down a bit from your original comment. In fact, your comment amped up your displeasure.

(no need for the comma after the word superior - underlings was not spelled correctly - typo on the word enough - no need to capitalize Intellectually - and savy is actually spelled savvy)

When I was making my comments I wanted to bring some of my expertise to the topic. I thought it would help. Both Al and I tried to make points that would help you broaden your perspective. So far no one has brought arguments against the points I made that really amounts to a counterpoint or counterargument. The “condescending” comment tells me you really have nothing to say constructive to the points I made. If you want my respect add something constructive to the dialogue.

I beg to differ. See comment above.

MonFrere

This is not a personal issue about musician, this is about THE MUSIC. NOT THE MUSICIANS.

My opinion is that it “was horrid” there is nothing nasty about that, I think along with many others that the music was horrid. It is very apparent ( if I spelt that wrong I am quite sure you will tell me) it is not Kosher to disagree with you.

Oh now we are an English major! I am always amazed at the unkind, inconsiderate, corrections that people like you make when others may spell a word or words wrong. Some like myself come from another country and English is not the first language. You are indeed a very small person.

there was no need for you to come to Al’s defense, I repeat no one was insulting him. If the comma’s are in the wrong place no doubt you will let me know about that also, Pathetic!

 

[benedictgal]

I just received this from the Papal Mass CHoir Director, fyi:

(Archbishop Wuerl) mentioned that the Pope gave him very positive reactions to the liturgy on two occasions after the Mass that day. And the Papal Master of Ceremonies, who travels with the Holy Father, was specific about the beauty and prayerfulness of the Liturgy as well.

If you watched EWTN this weekend or recorded their coverage of the Mass, you may have heard some negative comments by the anchor and his priest commentator… They were not present for the liturgy physically, but EWTN’s on-site commentator, Joan Lewis, who was actually at the stadium, was ecstatic about the music and wasn’t afraid to say so.

just food for thought.
Al

I am sorry, but hearing this second-hand from the choir director doesn’t necessarily validate the fact that the music was simply deplorable.

Ramond Arroyo and Fr. Neuhaus were not criticizing the choir. They have a God-given talen. However, they were given sub-par and mediocre music that was not at all appropriate for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Of course, the Holy Father is going to be gracious in his reaction. But, remember, that he has written several books on the issue of liturgy, in particular, Sacred Music. He still maintains the convictions he held as Joseph Ratzinger. While in public he will commend the choir for their work, I am sure that privately, there were discussions about the musical selections.

 

[30miller]

This is not a personal issue about musician, this is about THE MUSIC. NOT THE MUSICIANS.

My opinion is that it “was horrid” there is nothing nasty about that, I think along with many others that the music was horrid. It is very apparent ( if I spelt that wrong I am quite sure you will tell me) it is not Kosher to disagree with you.

Oh now we are an English major! I am always amazed at the unkind, inconsiderate, corrections that people like you make when others may spell a word or words wrong. Some like myself come from another country and English is not the first language. You are indeed a very small person.

there was no need for you to come to Al’s defense, I repeat no one was insulting him. If the comma’s are in the wrong place no doubt you will let me know about that also, Pathetic!

Well said, Nordar. And no matter how long ago it actually took place - welcome to this country.

 

[MonFrere]

Some like myself come from another country and English is not the first language.

Nodar,

Sorry. I misjudged you. I didn’t consider that english may not be your primary language. It would take a lot less than a “fine toothed comb” to find grammatical errors in my contributions to this forum.

Having said that, I ask you Nodar, to go back and read my contributions to this thread where I’m truly trying to add to the discussion. You may not have thought the music worthy of the Mass. I was trying to provide a way of thinking where you could perhaps give it a different look.

I know we live in complex times. I’m fully aware of present difficulties in the Church concerning liturgy (and music). This causes friction between brothers as we all ponder these things and come to different conclusions. I look to the bishops and the pope for leadership. I respect Bishop Wuerl and Pope Benedict greatly. When things “stretch me” when someone I respect does something I don’t understand - I try to examine myself and learn from them. I try to expand my perspective. Like our Blessed Mother - I try to ponder these things in my heart. Having taken that perspective I can see reasons why the musical selections chosen for the D.C. Mass were chosen. The selections demonstrated in a vivid way the diversity and vibrancy of the American Church. Would I want to hear this every week at Sunday Mass? No way. But when the Pope comes to the U.S. there is precious little time for him to access the American Church as is his job as our shepherd. I think Bishop Wuerl, as a wise bishop, did what he could to demonstrate to our Holy Father the tremendous gifts, vitality, and dynamism found in our Church. If we see things from this perspective - then maybe the music may be understood for what it was trying to demonstrate.

MonFrere

 

[benedictgal]

Nodar,

Sorry. I misjudged you. I didn’t consider that english may not be your primary language. It would take a lot less than a “fine toothed comb” to find grammatical errors in my contributions to this forum.

Having said that, I ask you Nodar, to go back and read my contributions to this thread where I’m truly trying to add to the discussion. You may not have thought the music worthy of the Mass. I was trying to provide a way of thinking where you could perhaps give it a different look.

I know we live in complex times. I’m fully aware of present difficulties in the Church concerning liturgy (and music). This causes friction between brothers as we all ponder these things and come to different conclusions. I look to the bishops and the pope for leadership. I respect Bishop Wuerl and Pope Benedict greatly. When things “stretch me” when someone I respect does something I don’t understand - I try to examine myself and learn from them. I try to expand my perspective. Like our Blessed Mother - I try to ponder these things in my heart. Having taken that perspective I can see reasons why the musical selections chosen for the D.C. Mass were chosen. The selections demonstrated in a vivid way the diversity and vibrancy of the American Church. Would I want to hear this every week at Sunday Mass? No way. But when the Pope comes to the U.S. there is precious little time for him to access the American Church as is his job as our shepherd. I think Bishop Wuerl, as a wise bishop, did what he could to demonstrate to our Holy Father the tremendous gifts, vitality, and dynamism found in our Church. If we see things from this perspective - then maybe the music may be understood for what it was trying to demonstrate.

MonFrere

First of all, we are not referred to as the American Church, anymore than there is a Canadian Church, a Mexican Church or a French Church. We are the Church in America, as Pope Benedict has stated many times.

Second, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the time to display diversity and mutli-culturalism. If the Metropolitan of DC were truly wise, he would have reserved such a display for a concert in honor of the Holy Father, not during the Mass. The music was deplorable and not at all suitable for the Mass. It was as if the DC organizers could have cared less about what the Holy Father had written on the subject (including books and speeches) and went ahead with their own agenda.

What is a grave chilling effect comes from the fact that OCP is hawking their songs as having the Benedictine seal of approval because they were used at the Papal Mass. That is clever, but shaemeful, marketing on their part. It’s bad anough that many of us have to contend with OCP on a weekly basis, but now to have them gleefully proclaim that their music is fet for a Papal Mass is pretty sad.

 

[aloysiusg]

benedictgal, I get it that you didn’t like the musical selection, but I would question your use of the term “deplorable” - surely you could come up with a more diplomatic way of expressing your opinion?

You also make assumptions about the organizers “could have cared less about what the Holy Father had written on the subject (including books and speeches) and went ahead with their own agenda.” and the Pope himself " I am sure that privately, there were discussions about the musical selections" for which you have no foundation. You are believing what you want to believe, which is fine, but be careful about expressing as fact what isn’t fact.

It is a terrific debate, but one which is more fruitful if it remains cordial. Kudoi to those that are trying to keep it civil.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal, I get it that you didn’t like the musical selection, but I would question your use of the term “deplorable” - surely you could come up with a more diplomatic way of expressing your opinion?

You also make assumptions about the organizers “could have cared less about what the Holy Father had written on the subject (including books and speeches) and went ahead with their own agenda.” and the Pope himself " I am sure that privately, there were discussions about the musical selections" for which you have no foundation. You are believing what you want to believe, which is fine, but be careful about expressing as fact what isn’t fact.

It is a terrific debate, but one which is more fruitful if it remains cordial. Kudoi to those that are trying to keep it civil.

First of all, deplorable aptly describes the selections. Furthermore, I don’t know if you’ve read any of the writings of the Holy Father, but, what was selected for the DC Mass certainly contradicted everything he has said:

From the Spirit of the Liturgy:

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.

…On the one hand, there is the music that Plato ascribes, in line with mythology, to Apollo, the god of light and reason. This is the music that draws senses into spirit and so brings man to wholeness. It does not abolish the senses, but inserts them into the unity of this creature that is man. It elevates the spirit precisely by wedding it to the senses, and it elevates the senses by uniting them with the spirit. Thus this kind of music is an expression of man’s special place in the general structure of being. But then there is the music that Plato ascribes to Marsyas, which we might describe, in terms of cultic history, as “Dionysian”. It drags man into the intoxication of the senses, crushes rationality, and subjects the spirit to the senses. The way Plato (and more moderately, Aristotle) allots instruments and keys to one or other of these two kinds of music is now obsolete and may in many respects surprise us. But the Apollonian/Dionysian alternative runs through the whole history of religion and confronts us again today. Not every kind of music can have a place in Christian worship. It has its standards, and that standard is the Logos. If we want to know whom we are dealing with, the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit, we have to remember that it is the Holy Spirit who moves us to say, “Jesus is Lord” (I Cor 12:3). The Holy Spirit leads us to the Logos, and He leads us to a music that serves the Logos as a sign of the sursum corda, the lifting up of the human heart. Does it integrate man by drawing him to what is above, or does it cause his disintegration into formless intoxication or mere sensuality? That is the criterion for a music in harmony with logos, a form of that logike latreia (reasonable, logos-worthy worship) of which we spoke in the first part of this book.

A good deal of the selections from the DC Mass would certainly fall under the categories listed in this quote. Furthermore, the Holy Father writes in Sacramentum Caritatis:

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).

Having read this, can you then say, with a straight face, that the selections from the DC Mass were entirely in accord with this line of thinking? I seriously doubt it.

 

[30miller]

First of all, we are not referred to as the American Church, anymore than there is a Canadian Church, a Mexican Church or a French Church. We are the Church in America, as Pope Benedict has stated many times.

Second, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the time to display diversity and mutli-culturalism. If the Metropolitan of DC were truly wise, he would have reserved such a display for a concert in honor of the Holy Father, not during the Mass. The music was deplorable and not at all suitable for the Mass. It was as if the DC organizers could have cared less about what the Holy Father had written on the subject (including books and speeches) and went ahead with their own agenda.

What is a grave chilling effect comes from the fact that OCP is hawking their songs as having the Benedictine seal of approval because they were used at the Papal Mass. That is clever, but shaemeful, marketing on their part. It’s bad anough that many of us have to contend with OCP on a weekly basis, but now to have them gleefully proclaim that their music is fet for a Papal Mass is pretty sad.

Well said. 
In addition, it goes without saying that it is a clear insult to invite one's "boss" to one's "house" for dinner and then serve him something that everyone with an IQ above minus12  knows his boss deplores.

And then to use the consideration of your boss - who out of courtesy didn’t throw the food in your face - as some sort of acceptance or endorsement (as you say OCP is doing is) is simply thumbing your nose at your boss on top of the original insult.

 

[aloysiusg]

“Having read this, can you then say, with a straight face, that the selections from the DC Mass were entirely in accord with this line of thinking?”

I do not think the selection of music ran contrary to that line of thinking, believe it or not.

 

[benedictgal]

“Having read this, can you then say, with a straight face, that the selections from the DC Mass were entirely in accord with this line of thinking?”

I do not think the selection of music ran contrary to that line of thinking, believe it or not.

And how so?

Certainly the musical setting used for the songs was questionable. The psalm was grossly mishandled. It is supposed to be responsorial and, it should be cantor/organ and faithful, not a full-blown musical number. The selections were also more in line with stuff that is performed at a salsa/merengue club or at a jazz lounge and not at all suitable for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.