However, liturgical music has always had two clear purposes in Catholic tradition: to pray and to teach. Like all religious art, it is meant to teach the faith in a different medium. During the Arian Heresy, the Arians used catchy songs with Arian lyrics to attract parishioners, who thought the orthodox music was “boring.” One of the reasons for chant in the liturgy is that chant, versus singing, is meant to emphasize recital of the lyrics.

Progressive liturgists–or at least their supporters–try to argue that the content of their lyrics doesn’t matter, that people aren’t going to be swayed from orthodoxy by hearing lyrics like, “We are the body of Christ” and “Let us break bread together on our knees” and “woman or man no more.”
Yet, when you actually hear people like Haugen talk, you know that is *exactly* what they want their lyrics to do.

Haugen demonstrates perfectly the “missing link” which is glaringly obvious in the liturgical sphere today.

That is, ‘what is the Mass’? It is NOT a social-engineering event, despite Haugen’s inference.

And whie personal detraction of Haugen is inappropriate, it is licit and required that one examine his music in the context of the Mass’ REAL purpose.

Pius X wrote the best definition of sacred music: to glorify God, and edify and sanctify the Faithful.

Music which does not accomplish these three objectives should not be used.

Santiago (Granada, Spain)
http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/