Ok… what has stayed consistant throughout the centuries for the Church regarding sacred music? Chant is the model for sacred music and any music composed for the liturgy should be modelled (not necessarily sound like chant) after that. It should also uphold the highest of standards set by the Church and which have been indicated throughout the thread.
What has also been consistent throughout the centuries? Introduction of newer forms/styles of music that would make its way into the mass. What would tend to occur with each introduction? Churches would adopt this music for their liturgy. Sometimes it would go on for a short period of time before it becomes known to the heads of the Church. Sometimes it would take years and people would assume that it was “approved”. It would eventually be reviewed and would be banned or accepted.
I’ve used this example before, but Polyphony, for instance, when it first came onto the scene for mass, was considered profane in it’s more rougher, secular form. Nothing was said about it until it became known by the Vatican. It was then subsequently banned. Generations later, the form was “refined” to better reflect sacred music and be more in line to the standards of what the Church deemed appropriate for mass. This took almost a century.
When Pope Pius X wrote his instructions on Sacred Music similar things were occurring for at least half a century. There was lots of saccharine goop as well as masterpieces which were composed in such a way that was not appropriate for mass. The document was a reminder to Catholics about what was appropriate and more fitting to the standards. And it didn’t matter how high of art or brilliance the piece was. Guiseppe Verdi’s Requiem, for instance, has been considered his “greatest opera” rather than a true sacred piece of music. (He actually needed permission from the Archbishop in Milan to even have it performed with women singers. The women had to sing behind a grate, wear “full black dress and cover their heads with ‘an ample mourning veil’”.) Thus, despite its beauty and greatness, and because of its operatic sound, it was never appropriate to use for mass. High art? Yes Goodness of Form? In a way, yes. Sanctity? In regards to the Church No - To the listener or the composer yes and possibly. Exclude all profanity? No because of the fact it sounded more like an opera, which is a secular form of music rather than a sacred form.
Durufle’s Requiem, on the other hand, was appropriate and equally beautiful. It was because of how he wrote the music and had it held up to all the standards of the Church. He was even able to incorporate the traditional chants within the music, while still making “new” music.
You can see the difference in these two clips:
Here is the Durufle Agnus Dei from his Requiem and notice how he incorporates the Agnus Dei chant. This can also be done just with an organ and a cello instead of organ and orchestra. I have heard this and Faure’s Requiem at Memorial masses - especially after 9/11:
youtube.com/watch?v=N6ySRRqe1ks
Then here is Verdi’s Dies Irae from his Requiem. It’s an increbile piece of music and makes you jump out of your seat, especially when listening to this live, but appropriate for mass? No. Too operatic and secular in sound and thus you will not hear it done during a funeral or memorial mass.
youtube.com/watch?v=DdT1Mw4QJT8&feature=related
So the question with any new music composed today is if it lives up to all the standards set by the Church and who has reminded us at various times whether it was Pius X or John Paul II or Benedict XVI. And we really need to answer that question honestly and not with regards to our own tastes. There are pieces of classical music written for mass, that I absolutely love and feel is very spiritual - for me. But I also realize that some of them were really not appropriate in the tone with which it was composed. I’m willing to not sing them or hear it played during mass for that reason, even though I love them so much. I also like listening to U2, The Beatles and Radiohead, French cafe songs etc. Would I want those styles set to sacred or religious words so that I could hear it for mass? No. Why? Mainly because the style is too secular… too profane. It’s really not the ‘truest of art’ even though I do enjoy the style. Even as a teen I wouldn’t have wanted that - way before I knew anything about what was or wasn’t appropriate for liturgy.
Anyway, that’s enough from me. God Bless.
uch: But since I did not use the Pope’s exact and lengthly definition in words to explain my meaning of ‘reverence and awe’ but chose simple language that most would easily understand, then my definition in your book is just not good enough. It doesn’t encompass “holy, universality, art, goodness of form, exclusion of profanity” and anything else you think I omitted. I stand corrected. Next time I explain myself, I should do so only cutting and pasting with documents. 
