Here is #4 and #5
4. Replacing Sung Propers with Something Else
Since the earliest centuries, the liturgy assigned particular scriptural texts to particular liturgical days. This happens at the entrance, the music between readings, the offertory, and the communion. The instructions are very clear: the assigned chant is to be sung. If something else was sung, the words were still said by the priest. And so it was in most countries from the 7th century until quite recently.
Today, the Mass propers are mostly replaced by something else, usually a hymn with words made up by some lyricist. Quite often the results have nothing to do with the liturgy at all. It’s actually remarkable when you think about it. Choirs busy themselves with replacing crucial parts of the liturgy. They just drop them completely. Mostly they do this with no awareness of what they are doing.
How many choirs know that their processional hymn is displacing the assigned entrance? How many know that there is a real antiphon assigned at the offertory and that it is not just a time for the choir to sing its favorite number? How many have read the repeated urgings in the General Instruction to sing the assigned chant or at least use the text in the official choir books rather than just choose a random song loosely based on the theme of the season?
To be sure, this is technically permissible to do, but, truly, this approach “cheats the faithful,” as the Vatican wrote in an instruction in 1969. The propers of the Mass are crucial. They are from scripture. Their Gregorian originals are stunningly evocative of the liturgical spirit and even define it. Even if sung in English or in choral style, the propers are part of the Mass. It should always be seen as regrettable when something else replaces them.
The General Instruction says “Nor is it lawful to replace the readings and Responsorial Psalm, which contain the Word of God, with other, non‐biblical texts.” That’s pretty definitive. But the same rationale should apply to the entrance, offertory, and communion chants as well.
Composed hymns with non-scriptural texts don’t need to be thrown out completely. They can be sung and always will be. But the real liturgical work of the choir is found in the Mass propers. That’s their primary responsibility. There are resources newly available that make it possible for any choir to do the right thing.
5. Percussion
In the first millennium, instruments were not part of the sung Mass, but as time went on, the organ was gradually admitted. By the 17th and 18th centuries, whole orchestras were used in certain locations. Even today you can find places where orchestral Masses are used that include tympani and other percussion instruments.
Most likely, that is not the context in which percussion instruments are used in your parish.
Today we hear conga drums, trap sets, bongos, and other drums played not in the style of Monteverdi processions, or Masses by Haydn or Mozart. Instead we hear them just as we would hear them in a bar or dance hall.
They are used just as they are in the secular world: to keep a beat, to make the music groovy, to inspired us to kind of do a bit of a dance. That’s the association of percussion we have in our culture. It is not a sacred association. The association is entirely profane. There’s a role for that. But Church is not the place and Mass is not the time.
And keep in mind: the piano is a percussion instrument. It has been traditionally banned in Church because it has non-liturgical associations. In today’s anything-goes environment, it is tolerated even by the liturgical regulations. But it is always a regrettable choice. The whole point of liturgical music is to lift our eyes and hearts to heaven, not drag us down to the dance floor.
One final point on this matter: you will notice that many of the songs in the conventional songbooks for Mass today seem to long for a drum-set backup. That’s because their style is borrowed from commercial jingles, TV show theme songs, power ballads from the 1970s, and so on. I don’t entirely blame choirs who choose drums to help out to make this style make more sense. What really needs to change is the whole approach here. Liturgical music has several critical marks: it uses the liturgical text, it grows out of the chant tradition, and sends a cultural signal that this is a sacred action in a sacred place.
The "primary accompanist" at our parish is a jazz piano player. He is also referred to as the "piano bar player" for his style of playing just about any music he gets a hold of. Doesn't matter if it is a traditional hymn, Haugen and Haus, Praise and worship etc, gospel, etc. He has a good deal of influence over most things musical in the parish, (he's the pastoral administrator's son) EXCEPT the 7:30am chant mass. (Of course the reason we are at 7:30am he probably had some input to).
The "sameness" and the banality of the music, plus the over emphasis on "active participation" greatly interferes with the solemnity of the mass. Before mass there is 10-15 minutes of Praise and Worship music so that it is impossible to pray nor prepare for mass. Outside of the 7:30 mass, there is no escape from this situation.
Be very careful with this sort of headline. Assuming the validity, and thus the efficacy, of the Sacrament is maintained, no Mass can be "ruined".
Is the traditional (Thomistic) view now considered incorrect: That the efficacy–its effectiveness as a channel of grace to the faithful–of a valid Mass can vary greatly, depending as it does upon factors such as those mentioned in the article, which surely can (among other effects) affect the receptivity of people to that grace.
As a recovering chuch pianist, I think it's all the the style of play/performance. I've heard traditional 4-part hymns played on a piano so that an organ-like quality was achieved. The piano is a very unique instrument. A beautiful grand or baby grand in a stereotypical smaller suburban parish played well can be a think of beauty, and can support congregational singing.
From this argument, I put forth that it's the pianist's training, both in terms of performance and church/music history and liturgy, that determine the "mood," and whether Mass is "ruined."
My point being, short of changing the actual words of the Consecration, none of the five things listed could possibly invalidate a Mass, which in my book would be the only real way to ruin it.
But you said "Assuming the validity, and thus the efficacy". My point was that validity does not necessarily assure efficacy. Not to quibble about the linguistic accuracy of describing as "ruined" a valid Mass whose efficacy for some worshipers has been vitiated by factors like these under discussion.
+1, Richard. But SOP in this era in any media compels some writers to not only hyperbole, but summations in their titles and bylines. Irksome, and it drives people to Rush Limbaughs who then affirm their stereotypes of "low information people."
Well said, Richard.
It also needs to be said that some believers go looking for trouble, and thus "ruin" their personal experience of liturgy based on their expectations. Or some people are so imbued with the hermeneutic of complaint they go looking for reasons to kvetch. Refusing God's grace, even in moments that appear un-graced, is pretty serious matter. Time to consult a spiritual director on that one.
Todd
Back to the two ways to, shall we say, "negatively affect" (rather than ruin) the Mass, particularly #5, I wholeheartedly agree. And that's coming from a drum fanatic. No, I do not play drums, but I always wanted to play. My fondness for drums even includes watching drum solos and lessons on youtube quite often. BUT, there's a time and a place. My parish has quit using drums, electric guitars and electric bass in the past year and now the music is much more heavenly. More hymns in latin, too. The impetus? Most surely it was the two young priests from Spain who became our Pastor and Assistant Pastor about a year and a half ago. They must have had a culture shock when they arrived to nearly rock'n'roll music at our parish. I welcome their changes and thank heaven they rid the Mass of electric guitars and drums. And that's coming from a rock'n'roller at heart!
About twenty years ago Carolyn (my wife) and I did an article for The Wanderer entitled "Throw Out the Pianos," that pretty well prophesied the low state of music that we have gotten into today. I successfully used the piano to back up the pipeorgan in the Masses I coordinated in our parish for six weeks (before I was fired as choir director). Adding it in the third verse of a hymn was not distracting and moved the congregational singing up a half-notch. But that said, it was the pipeorgan that did the heavy lifting. Percussion adds nothing to the vertical dimension of Catholic worship. I have frequently said that one way to know that a hymn is unsuitable is that it sounds better when you add a hammer beating on a piece of rebar.
Not sure about this.
The Propers remain optional.
At the parish I serve at (when we do not sing the above), we sing scripture settings set to music by composers such as Marty Haugen and Bernadette Farrell. Alternatively, a metrical psalm or a scriptural hymn such as 'Be present for the presence of the
Lord'. (Dave Evans).
All instruments and styles of music are permitted at Mass.
What do people think of the stunning shimmering percussion of Bill Tamblin's version of 'Lumen Christe'? (OUP)?
Or the bongo interlude on Bernadette Farrell's 'God has chosen me'?
Okay, the choir occasionally sing 'Ave verum, — (Byrd). This is not strictly scriptural, but it is based on the liturgical texts, and V2 states that: 'polyphony is not excluded from the liturgy'.
In my view, the psalm settings of Marty Haugen work better on the piano.
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaqls5W8R-U
— What stunningly beautiful chant inspired music.
I think you make some good points JQ. The Propers are optional, though, as has been stated here and elsewhere, they seem to be the preferred option. I'm all for taking the people from where they are (the 4-hymn sandwich) and moving them to what the church desires (sung Propers; be it chant, polyphony, Latin/ vernacular, contemporary-inspired-by-chant, etc.)
BUT I think we need to be VERY careful about what we bring into the Mass. Yes, all styles of music/art are allowed, to a certain extent. The goal has to be better worship, liturgy, what-have-you. Just because one can do it, should one do it?
So the bongo solo, what does that do? How does it enrich and sanctify the Mass? Where else are bongos used? Or electric guitars, for that matter? I'm a big rockabilly fan, but I don't think a Stray Cats-esque version of the Sanctus is appropriate.
I guess my point is that there's a place for everything, and everything has its place. Each church is holy ground. The vestments are special. The art is special. We should have special, unique music that reminds us that we are in a holy place, on holy ground, in the presense of the Almighty.
I
thought the MH psalm you linked was Broadway-esque. It reminded me of something from Les Mis or Jeckyl and Hyde. It was nice to listen to, though I would'nt use it at my church. I like his setting of Ps. 137 (His love is everlasting). We sang it a cappella.
Usually good music encourages a good ars celebrandi, particularly if the celebrant sings his parts. On the other hand a perfectly adequate celebration can be ruined by rubbish music. Like the guitarist who thought that the repetitively banal kindergarten song "This is the day that the Lord has made" was a suitable 'Introit' for the First Sunday of Advent (Yes, I know it is loosely based on Ps 117 and the Easter Gradual 'Haec Dies', but that does not redeem it). The hapless ageing hippie was about to launch into a pop 'Gloria' (you know the genre – repeat the first line three times and throw in a few Alleluias for good measure) but the priest stopped him just in time.
There are still parishes in England which use settings of the Ordinary where the same trite melody is used for the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei (the English words being altered to fit). The people who write this drivel, and those who inflict it on congregations, don't know the first thing about liturgy or music.
It strikes me that if the priest sings his parts, as in MR3, two things would happen: 1) more people would sing and 2) the inappropriate music would have to fall by the wayside because it just seems so ridiculous set against another simply dignified muisc.
It also restores the necessary objectivity to the rite, and would go a long way towards eliminating the ad-libbing, the false and exaggerated emphases and gestures, the chatty asides.
I am absolutely stunned, but mostly amused by some of the comments here. I have not posted in a long time… but what the heck… what version of SC are some people here reading, when they refer to the "over-emphasis" of full, conscious and active participation? Fascinating… this principle runs through all of the documents of the liturgy both at, and following the council.
And a similar blindness to the fact that SC, and post-conciliar reflections not only ALLOW, but honor and hold up all instruments. This knocking of the piano, and PERCUSSION… my goodness, percussion is one of the most primal and central of ritual instruments. If people here do not like a certain instrument, that is fine. If your tastes run in a different direction, that is fine. But to ridicule instruments that have led people in prayer, because of your own biases… well… I would cry fowl. Those who would do so, insult and profane the authentic worship and spirituality of those who find prayer and ritual enshrined in a galaxy.
What in the world are you afraid of? Gregorian chant is BEAUTIFUL, it should be utilized, it should be honored and seen as an important vehicle of prayer. But the need to bash, judge, and ridicule other genres and sonic expressions, can only be interpreted as fear. Do chant, do it beautifully.. and try to stop the ongoing need to demonize things that really are not hurting you. There are all kinds of musical styles that everyone here prefers, and there are styles that we do not like. OK – that is fine. Musical style and genre is not the issue.. the issue is liturgical functionality, and of course, beauty and quality. I certainly do not like music that is done badly… but Gregorian chant can be done pretty badly also….
If we are going to read and abide by the documents.. then read and abide by ALL of it.. not just the sections where you agree with.
Geez…. O well, I better stop.. I know that many who are reading this are probably at the boiling point, ready to find a voodoo doll with my likeness, eager to poke!
Good points.
After many years of exchanges with Jeffrey, I've learned that sometimes you just can't take him too seriously. He's on Colloquium this week, so believe me: he'll be insufferable for days after this.
There is no over-emphasis on participation in the Roman Rite. It was advocated not only in SC, but repeatedly in many other conciliar documents, as well as urged in nearly every post-conciliar liturgy document.
Those who want to impose a hermeneutic of subtraction with regard to instruments simply have no concept of sacred music history. Except for the people and styles they like.
Todd
What stuns me, in David Haas's post, is his assumption that those who have the temerity to suggest that pop music, jungle drums and the like are not traditional to the Roman Rite are somehow lunatic fringe heretics. Haas has made a commercial success with his style of compositions, and no-one will begrudge him that; however, he must surely acknowledge that James MacMillan is a far greater composer with a far greater understanding of the liturgical and musical tradition of the western Church, and what the latter has said regarding the state of music post-V2 is not simply a subjective and maverick opinion.
Todd, please explain your last two sentences.
John
"Are you trying to make me foolish?" A well-known retort to this question is "You don't need any help from me." The same applies for those infernal rainsticks, djembes, etc. They speak for themselves, and what they say to both trained and untrained ear is that what is going on is trivial and not to be taken seriously.
Critics like Jeffrey have insufficient knowledge of music history. Their love of propers and desire to expel all instruments from the liturgy is a kind of aural iconoclasm. The hermeneutic of subtraction is largely a subjective, consumerist judgment intended to make the Mass "the way I want it."
Todd
Todd, for someone who accuses others of a lack of reading comprehension, you don't seem to have understood Jeffrey's post. Where does he talk about banning all instruments? Why should singing the Propers be deemed iconoclastic when it has been standard practice for a millennium and a half? He doesn't even advocate getting rid of hymns. Why should singing something we are supposed to sing be a "hermeneutic of subtraction"? If you are looking for subjectivity and consumerism, I suggest you hold up a mirror to yourself and those who peddle your tired 1970s line.
Jeffrey's post was the springboard for my criticism when I was asked to clarify. "Critics like Jeffrey … Their …" is what I wrote. I was talking about musical iconoclasts in general.
Singing the Propers were never the standard practice in the Low Mass. They certainly weren't sung by the silent Catholic assemblies.
And 1970's? Wash your mouth! I'm an 80's/90's MR2 guy. lol
Todd
Joannes… I wish you not echo back things that I did not say at all. I never spoke of ANYONE being "lunatic fringe heretics." Any commercial "success" that I may or may not have received (which by the way, you have no knowledge of one way or the other – so do not presume to speak to it when you do not know what you are talking about) is NOT the issue that I raised. Stop skirting the issue by making ME or my particular compositions the issue… please read what I said, and I would appreciate that if you are going to respond to something I said, that be actually something I said. My post had nothing to do with what people think of my compositions, or whether or not certain people are better composers than others – please read the post. If you want to spew your disdain for instruments as representing "pop music" and the derogatory term "jungle drums," that is fine. Are they "traditional" to the Roman Rite? Of course not.. But is being "traditional to the Roman Rite" the issue? No matter how hard some folks here want to disregard what SC says, and "cherry pick" what they like and don't like – the argument cannot sustain itself. It says that chant has "pride of place," but not "sole" place… sorry.. that is not my "subjective" or "maverick" opinion. It is fact. I love chant, I promote its use, and use it myself… but SC and the vision of liturgy of Vatican II gives a thicker slice – a broader and expanded proclamation that the genius of many genres and styles, most certainly has a place in the liturgy, as long as it honors the role that liturgical music is to play, for the prayer of the people, and the enhancement of the ritual action.
I too would like the presider at Mass to be singing more often. However, unless and until seminary formation and even priesthood discernment is geared to the singing priest, its unlikely we will ever see it happen. True: more priests can sing than those who think they can. But it's also undeniable that many clergy make different choices in their ministry emphasis and asking them to train as a singer is a difficult piece of persuasion.
In some places, singing just calls attention to itself. The cultural context of Sunday Mass is not a monastery, but a place where people will think a young priest is a Justin Bieber wannabe, and old priest a Bob Dylan, and even a good singer an opera diva. It might even be seen as narcissism, a need to call attention to oneself, and an obscuring of Christ.
And unless you're prepared to ask them to sing the homily, you're still going to get "ad-libbing, the false and exaggerated emphases and gestures, the chatty asides." These are people. They make errors. They get in the way. It happens.
In the assembly, we are adults. We deal with distractions. We get over it.
Todd
I thought the idea was to get away from the "Low Mass with hymns" concept and to "sing the Mass" which presumably includes the Propers. There has been no small amount of real iconoclasm since V2, which makes it a bit problematic to talk about a
metaphorical musical iconoclasts. Was Pius X a musical iconoclast? Those who turned up expecting to hear Gounod and got Palestrina might have thought so. What about the council Fathers at Trent who condemned the elaborate polyphony which obscured the text? Musical iconoclasts? How would you describe those French Benedictine communities who celebrated their release from having to sing the Office in Latin by ceremonially burning their chant books? Isn't that musical iconoclasm?
I suppose that if your musical icons are guitars and drumkits then you can describe those who would like to see the back of them as musical iconoclasts. Perhaps they have been around long enough to have acquired iconic status. Who knows, we may even see guitar-strumming, poncho-wearing gauchos accompanying Papal Masses in St Peter's.
JP, I think you have misdiagnosed the post-conciliar situation. First, the anti-iconoclasm after the Council was the attempt to raise all those "low Masses" into liturgies that celebrate fully with song.
The iconoclasm of which I speak is really the extreme CMAA position: only propers and nothing else, only chant and no other genres, only voices and perhaps the organ, no percussion. The desire and practice to eject good repertoire and well-played instruments is iconoclasm. And my friend and colleague Jeffrey is guilty, at the very least, of being a sympathizer to iconoclasm.
Please do not make assumptions about what my personal icons are or are not. Your last paragraph is a statement of ignorance, not of any real knowledge. I'm criticizing the hermeneutic of subtraction on this thread: nothing more and nothing less.
Todd
Todd,
I agree with para. 1
Para. 2: I think the singing calls attention to itself because it's not done as much OR the singing is not done as part of a dialogue. I recall this young priest with long hair and a beard, who sat during the Eucahristic Prayer and, very, very sappily, sang. No dialogues were sung at that mass.
What if we just left out the homily, and let silence reign a moment? Just a thought. I know, I know, the homily is called for….sheesh! 🙂
JO
Thanks, Todd. I didn't know if I was inadvertently insulted. I was not.
Peace,
JO
I think the term 'jungle drums' looses something in the translation from English to English, if you follow me. JP is from the UK, if I'm not mistaken.
Just to throw another monkey wrech out there…isn't the term "Pride of place" a dynamic equivalent translation? The formal translation was something to the effect of "Chant should have first place, all other things being equal. That arguement was found here and other similar sites.
Just like the term 'actuosa' is "actual,' not 'active….
The actual/active discussion is irrelevant. SC 30 describes what the council bishops explicitly envisioned. And participation is continually discussed and described in other conciliar documents, as well as the post-Vatican II literature.
All other things being equal would presume a Church of believers with a daily rhythm of prayer. Not a situation in which we would be discussing a special evangelization sub-category to those already baptized, and world variations in architecture and acoustics in which chant is not rendered so terribly well.
It's a great ideal. But it's just not happening.
Todd
My bad. The 'you' in the last paragraph was meant to be the impersonal 'you'. To avoid confusion in future I shall use 'one'. Iconoclasm has a specific meaning, and there was a lot of it about after the Council – removing statues and smashing up high altars is iconoclasm pure and simple. So was the action of the Jesuits at St Aloysius, Oxford, who burnt their large collection of relics (a 19th century bequest) and sold off the vestment collection, which included mitres which had belonged to Pio Nono, to theatrical companies. Thankfully the Oratorians took over the church in the 1990s.
The point I was trying to make is that once one starts using iconoclasm in a metaphorical sense, it becomes a subjective value-judgement.
As for 'the hermeneutic of subtraction' that's also subjective; a lot has been removed from the liturgy in the last fifty years; isn't this (for better or worse) a 'hermeneutic of subtraction? And if not, why not?
When I was a kid, there were plenty of Catholic churches that saw sticking to the lectionary as some kind of unattainable ideal, whereas others apparently thought that the little Missalette reading summary was a sacred, holy part of the lectionary.
Apparently it's too much to expect people to sing the Alleluia verse proper in some places, too, and yet it's not all that difficult. If the music director lets you.
The Propers, antiphons and psalm verses both, are part of the cycle of material we're supposed to be using for Mass. At some point. Some people think it's too much to expect; others don't.
So yeah, basically some people want everything to be optional except their own liturgical committee opinions, and doubtless with the best intentions. Others want to use the riches of the Church every day, to the greater glory of God, including what the Church sets as the default for Mass in the Latin Rite. It's a lot easier to do the default, surely, than to claim that a perfectly normal default Mass is some unattainable obscurity.
I think my use of iconoclasm is meant to be more than metaphor. It's also intended as irony.
I very much think that Jeffrey's essay is a near-total subjective value judgment. In that sense, my use of "iconoclasm" was also factually accurate.
Todd
Todd, you're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well I wasn't referring to the homily, where even in the EF chattiness and humour can be found. In fact, to emphasize that the liturgy is suspended at this point, the celebrant removes his maniple (in France he often removes the chasuble as well). Perhaps the OF's insistence that the homily be seen as liturgical is partly to blame. That, and the priest facing the congregation at all times, even when sitting down.
"In that sense, my use of 'iconoclasm' was also factually accurate". So how does an ironic metaphor assume concrete reality simply because it sets one subjective value-judgement against another? To call Jeffrey's article a subjective value-judgement is to make a subjective value-judgement, unless one considers one's opinions to be infallible.
"Iconoclasm" is only factually accurate when it refers to the actual destruction of icons or images.
Yes, "bongo" has slightly derogatory connotations. I usually ignore PC, mostly on principle, but also because it constantly changes. When Nelson Mandela was SA President he was interviewed by a female American television journalist. She wanted to ask him about what it was like to be a black South African under apartheid. Unfortunately her PC instincts kicked in and she came out with "How did you, as an African American … "
Nelson's face was a picture.
GIRM 41: "Principem locum obtineat, ceteris paribus, cantus gregorianus utpote Liturgiae Romanae proprius". The phrase 'ceteris paribus' is used by economists and others to strengthen a connection by 'corralling' other variables. Gregorian Chant should have first place not by virtue of its antiquity, beauty or responsiveness to the text, but because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. 'Ceteris paribus' is not a 'get out of jail card' to be deployed by those who for whatever reason don't want to do Chant.
So what's everyone's program for this Sunday?
Off the top of my head, I have Bassus et Dessus by Clarembault (organ) for Communion, followed by Bless The Lord My Soul (trad hymn based on the Proper, almost as a Post-communion, so all or most can sing. Hymns and songs to round it out.
We're currently using the revised Heritage Mass, and Chabanel psalms. Respond and Acclaim Gospel Acclamation, though that will change to the 'chant' Alleluia 'round late August. Gotta see when the tone of the readings change.
So, nothing too far off the "norm."
Just, as I've posted before, trying to bring the folks from where they were to a better place, IMHO.
Religious images and religious music: two artistic expressions that appeal to faith. The attack of some on religious music is very much akin to the destruction of images. If you want to make up a word that describes that, I'm all ears.
As for Jeffrey's essay, I do indeed think it's a subjective judgment. My own fallibility is irrelevant. The claim is not dependent on my perfection or lack of it, but on the objective truth and accuracy of Jeffrey's claims. What you are engaging in here, JP, is a classic example of ad hominem.
Todd
So saying that Jeffrey has insufficient knowledge of music history (thus implying that you have) isn't ad hominem? Motes and beams, anyone? The points he made in his article have been made repeatedly by musicians and liturgical scholars far more knowledgeable than you or I.
To maintain that certain styles of music are unsuitable for liturgical use is not attacking religious music as such; you yourself are constantly complaining about what you arbitrarily define as 'performance music'. And your unwillingness to give a straight answer to a question would do credit to a politician.
JP, no it's not.
Jeffrey is an economist by trade and training. That's not to say that he or anyone else can't even be a music history autodidact. I just haven't seen much evidence of that in him.
But if my car breaks down a half mile out of the car repair shop … for the third time in 2 months, I think I have a fair case to make that my mechanic doesn't know his stuff. And I don't need to be a car repair guy myself to make that assessment.
"Ad hominem" is more than name-calling when the discussion doesn't go my way. You've repeatedly attempted to derail the discussion of Jeffrey's points by questioning my credentials.
All five of Jeffrey's points can be called into question. The Propers are one option among many, and far from always being the best. his comments about percussion instruments just shows a lack of depth in his experience of early music.
I can see this discussion, at least for me, is already running off the rails. Time to go. If you want to continue, JP, email me.
Todd
No point. Aures habent, et non audient.
whoops, that's next week!
I don't think it is irrelevant. That ( irrelevant) is a convenient, dismissive word if you don't agree with a POV. Language is one of the most powerful things ( I was going to say weapons) that we as humans have at our disposal. Some word choices in translation led to the last 50 years of the catholic music experience.
SC AND the GIRM, AND "Sing To The Lord" ( for whatever THAT'S worth) also encourage the singing of chant and use of Latin. So, we can read the documents as presenting a preferred style of music/ language etc. Or we can pick and choose, cafeteria style, what we want.
It's not what you think, or I think, or what Mgr Wadsworth of ICEL thinks, or what real liturgical scholars think, or what real composers like James MacMillan think, that matters – it's what Todd and his cronies at PTB (where he is notably more outspoken than he is on this blog) think, that has any relevance in the parallel universe they inhabit. The tradition of the Church is an opinion, but what they say is definitive. It's a waste of time arguing with them. However, I shall persevere in calling them out, because like most other English/Irishmen I am an awkward and argumentative sod. Magna est veritas et prevalebit.