I read CNS "news" in someone esle's diocesan paper, a week late or so, you see.
So, a representative of one arm of the Liturgical-Industrial Complex characterizes the Church Music Association of America as "small but loud."
I'd like to think CNS misquoted the fellow, or by neglecting context, implied he meant something he did not.
After all, their selective quoting of the director of the US bishops CDW equivalent makes him sound ignorant as all get out
Chant has a legitimate place in Catholic worship, Father Hilgartner said, but "there's room for other legitimate cultural adaptations, which includes the form that music for liturgy takes."Chant's place is only "legitimate"? really? Is that what "pride of place" means, legitimate, but no more or less privileged than anything else?
Fr Hilgartner is surely not so ill-informed.
I mean, he couldn't be, right?
And back to the company man,
"There's a camp that's becoming entrenched, (saying) that the proper antiphons that are found in the missal are as essential to the liturgy as the reading, and no one would ever replace the proper antiphons with something else."
Aside from the question of whether that is a fair characterization of anyone's position, --- for a representative of a faction that is "entrenched" in the liturgy as business, and "entrenched" in a position whereby they profit from the sale of those hymns, (take the term to mean text or tune,) that usurp the place of the propers, and has been so "entrenched" for nigh on four decades, to describe someone else as "entrenched" -- well, it's rich.