the USCCB’s statement doesn’t carry magisterial weight.

This is correct; STTL does not carry weight.
http://www.vatican.va -> English -> Roman Curia -> Congregations -> Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments -> 2004-apr-23 Redemptionis Sacramentum -> # 28

But the Bishops do have authority over these matters in their jurisdictions,

Yes, the individual bishop, in his diocese.

and the Vatican hasn’t made any move to rescind, challenge, or otherwise abrogate the Bishop’s statements.

Because that is not how it works. USCCB statements LACK force until they have been both submitted and approved (recognitio). I watched the Nov 2007 USCCB meeting (EWTN online feed) and the bishops made it very clear that they would NOT submit STTL for recogitio, then they voted to accept it. Perhaps a video or a transcript is available online somewhere; it would be enlightening for more people to know how this got done.

the USCCB’s approval of the hymnals

The USCCB has NOT approved any hymnal. The approval is from the bishop of the diocese (or his delegate?) in which a publisher creates a hymnal. The question is whether or not his approval extends beyond his diocese.

I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. I love all the music you mentioned, and I think there is “plenty good room in my Father’s kingdom” for all of it.

I have mixed feelings on having different styles of Masses, but I think it could work if done in a sane, pastorally appropriate way. Unfortunately, the RotR people don’t want to stop at having Masses they prefer- they want to force their opinions on style and appropriateness on everyone else too. They seem to think they are better at interpreting the Vatican than their local Bishops are.

One point that should be made is that most parishes celebrate more than one Mass per weekend. Why not offer a more traditional-music Mass and a contemporary-music Mass, both with reverent, by-the-book liturgical action?

Respectfully, I have to quibble with a few points here and there…

When I said “active participation here can only mean congregational singing” I didn’t mean that active participation ALWAYS means congregational singing. Only right there in the text did it mean so. What I was getting at is that S.C. is clearly asking composers to write music not only for “large choirs” and “small groups” but also for the congregation to sing.

I would also strongly disagree that S.C.’s call for inculturation does not extend to the U.S. To claim that some countries and cultures should be treated differently than other countries and cultures is prejudiced, condescending, and racist.

Further- and I know this isn’t enough for many traditionalists- the USCCB uses the same logic and interpretation that I do in their statement on liturgical music, Sing to the Lord. Jake points out that the USCCB’s statement doesn’t carry magisterial weight. But the Bishops do have authority over these matters in their jurisdictions, and the Vatican hasn’t made any move to rescind, challenge, or otherwise abrogate the Bishop’s statements. Even the USCCB’s approval of the hymnals currently in use in most Catholic parishes suggests that “the Church” or “the hierarchy” approves of the use of these styles of music, and those songs in particular. To claim that the USCCB’s statements carry no weight doesn’t seem to be very… what’s the word?… obedient.

Now-

Clearly, nothing in either the Vatican documents or the USCCB’s statements allow for the gross indignities piled on the Liturgy by my fellow modernists: pre-recorded music, secular songs, dance, invented prayers, tacky banners, dramatic interpolations, cheap vestments, rampant casualness, ugly carpet, “children’s homilies,” gameshow banter…

Nor should we have tolerated the wholesale removal of the Latin language or the traditional music of the Church.

For those reasons, I’m very sympathetic to the Traditionalists. For many people, all they have seen is the worst of the mangled reforms. Lots of parishes are doing bad music, and their doing it badly. Lots of parishes still have those awful banners from the 70′s (with the felt letters). Lots of parishes think Liturgical Dance is a good idea, altar servers shouldn’t wear robes, crucifixes are too ugly, chant is too boring, and the text of the Sacramentary is only a suggestion.

But I believe there is a middle way. Within the framework of the Liturgy- without breaking it or bending it to our wills- we can worship and sing in a way that is culturally relevant to people in any time and place. And I believe that the Fathers of the Council thought so, too. This is not some willy-nilly “spirit of Vatican II,” liberality- this is both my understanding of the actual documents and (apparently) the understanding of the Bishops in my country.

I will agree that most parishes aren’t there. And I appreciate the work of the Traditionalists, especially those working on the revival of traditional sacred music (especially Gregorian Chant). But I think their hardline stance against contemporary music is both incorrect (as I’ve tried to show above) and unwise- it’s difficult to win friends and influence people when you tell them how wrong they are over and over, when you denigrate the worship that has formed them and the music they love.

I saw your comments at Roma locuta est and have read your post.
I’m a convert from the Episcopal Church where, for the last few years I was there, we sang from the OCP Music Issue. But as I’ve learned more, I’ve also learned that there is a selective interpretation of S.C. that is not valid. for example, you state:

“Active participation” here can only mean “congregational singing,”

this is quite wrong; active participation is achieved by “entering into the liturgy” and at times is done in complete silence; music at the wrong time can actually prevent active participation. At a recent funeral mass at a very liberal parish, I was privileged to join a small schola and sing the Dies Irae as well as the Missa de
Angelis responses, and other fine bits of traditional music. After, one
parishioner said that at first she was upset that she couldn’t sing along too, but then stated that she noticed that, in so many words, she entered a place of depth in the mass which she’d never experienced before, and was truly grateful and appreciative of being given that experience. In her own words, she described what “active participation” means!

An excellent resource is Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy” – I suggest you obtain it and read it with an open mind.

2. “Inculturation” was never meant by S.C. to refer to places like the US. That is an interpretation which is an abuse of the document.

3. "112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art.
"
I will make the observation that most of the music I hear at church is so far below this “inestimable value” that I’d rather have a mass with no music at all. Now when SC declares the high value of the Church’s musical tradition, it is clear that most Catholics today do not value it very much, if at all.

"But the Church approves of all forms of true art having the needed qualities, and admits them into divine worship."
 the key is “having the needed qualities” – it’s not a wide open door. what are the needed qualities? I would suggest that in order to understand what S.C. is calling for, notice that
S.C. refers to the leadership of Piux X (in 112). Tra le Sollecitudini will help your understanding.

From there let’s go 100 years forward and we find:

CHIROGRAPH OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II
FOR THE CENTENARY OF THE MOTU PROPRIO
“TRA LE SOLLECITUDINI’ ON SACRED MUSIC

The text of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium in which it is declared that the Church “approves of all forms of true art which have the requisite qualities[7], and admits them into divine worship”, finds satisfactory criteria for application in nn. 50-53 of the above-mentioned Instruction Musicam Sacram[8].

if we look there,

MUSICAE SACRAE
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII ON SACRED MUSIC

we find the description of what fits the criteria for admission to the liturgy
(nos 50-53):
50. It is quite obvious that what We have said briefly here about Gregorian chant applies mainly to the Latin Roman Rite of the Church. It can also, however, be applied to a certain extent to the liturgical chants of other rites – either to those of the West, such as the Ambrosian, Gallican or Mozarabic, or to the various eastern rites.

51. For as all of these display in their liturgical ceremonies and formulas of prayer the marvelous abundance of the Church, they also, in their various liturgical chants, preserve treasures which must be guarded and defended to prevent not only their complete disappearance, but also any partial loss or distortion.

52. Among the oldest and most outstanding monuments of sacred music the liturgical chants of the different eastern rites hold a highly important place. Some of the melodies of these chants, modified in accordance with the character of the Latin liturgy, had a great influence on the composition of the musical works of the Western Church itself. It is Our hope that the selection of sacred eastern rite hymns – which the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, with the help of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, is busily working to complete – will achieve good doctrinal and practical results. Thus eastern rite seminarians, well trained in sacred chant, can make a significant contribution to enhancing the beauty of God’s house after they have been ordained priests.

53. It is not Our intention in what We have just said in praise and commendation of the Gregorian chant to exclude sacred polyphonic music from the rites of the Church. If this polyphonic music is endowed with the proper qualities, it can be of great help in increasing the magnificence of divine worship and of moving the faithful to religious dispositions. Everyone certainly knows that many polyphonic compositions, especially those that date from the 16th century, have an artistic purity and richness of melody which render them completely worthy of accompanying and beautifying the Church’s sacred rites.

I think it is clear that nothing is there to back your claims that the sort of music we hear, even the better stuff, is admitted to the liturgy by S.C.

OK, that’s a lot of stuff, but
we’re all learning, thanks be to God!
God bless,
Mark