Firstly I thought your definition of art was slightly insufficient. What is a “sensible” medium, and what is “authentic” human expression? Your definition leans towards a moral bent on the outset with the use of the word “sensible.”

‘Sensible’ means “perceptible to the senses,” e.g., a painting is visible and chant is audible. The question of what is an authentic human expression is key. I propose that an authentic human expression is something that is in keeping with the truth about human nature such that it in some way calls to mind the purpose of human existence. This calling to mind can certainly–sometimes more effectively–be indirect such as when art presents something evil as being evil.

The whole question about Gregorian chant is by no means answered here. In fact, I use chant as an example of the fact that what is most appropriate for the liturgy is not the same as what the greatest number of people finds inspiring, prayerful, etc.

Chant not only has a scriptural basis but the form of chant is such that it is non-secular and such that it complements and uplifts the text. To read more about such things, I recommend Tra le Sollecitudini by Pius X.

Although you dismiss subjectivity, how is a like or dislike of Gregorian chant over other music anything but subjective.

You’re right; liking versus disliking Gregorian chant is subjective. As far as the liturgy is concerned, however, it’s not a question of like versus dislike: it’s a question of being taken into the Church’s prayer, which is Christ’s prayer. This concerns even those human elements of the liturgy, which have developed over time. There is much to be said for praying with the same words and the same forms that have been in use for so long.

The use of scripture, human voice, and melody are as much a human construction as any other music.

I have to be honest that I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Scripture, for instance, is primarily the work of God. The human voice, also, was devised and created by God. These qualities are some examples of why chant, in a special way, is sacred.

Why then do we insist on putting this chant above all else? Just because chant is beautiful and has substantial history behind it doesnt mean we have to theologise it, where it becomes somehow more holy, sacred and “beautiful” than other music. Using the criteria for attributing Gregorian chant given, you could theologise just about any music that somehow fits your personal view on music in the liturgy.

I like to think that it’s not about my personal view on music in the liturgy. When my personal tastes and inclinations don’t conform to the Church’s worship of God in a proper way, I am the one who needs to change.

All of this, of course, presumes that a certain type of inculturation is appropriate. The elements present in different cultures, however, are not always on an equal level and ought not to be chosen among indiscriminately. Rather, Gregorian chant (as the example in this case) must truly be given “pride of place” because of its most suitable form and long tradition of use.

Firstly I thought your definition of art was slightly insufficient. What is a “sensible” medium, and what is “authentic” human expression? Your definition leans towards a moral bent on the outset with the use of the word “sensible.”

Secondly, I just dont think the whole question regarding Gregorian chant has been answered here. It is true that Gregorian Chant has a scriptural basis, but so can any particular lyrics that anyone can write for a piece of music. The whole premise that the chant is somehow “God’s special music” cannot be sereriously substantiated.

Although you dismiss subjectivity, how is a like or dislike of Gregorian chant over other music anything but subjective. The use of scripture, human voice, and melody are as much a human construction as any other music. Why then do we insist on putting this chant above all else? Just because chant is beautiful and has substantial history behind it doesnt mean we have to theologise it, where it becomes somehow more holy, sacred and “beautiful” than other music. Using the criteria for attributing Gregorian chant given, you could theologise just about any music that somehow fits your personal view on music in the liturgy.

Thanks