So the Masses of polyphonic music with orchestra and soloist which ruled the Solemn Masses from the 15th to the 19th Century were great offense in the eyes of the Lord?
I just want to address a technical point first. The orchestral Masses of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are not polyphony. They have most homophonic texture, actually, though certainly do include polyphonic sections. When we speak of polyphonic settings of the Mass, we are usually talking about the type of Mass settings by Palestrina and Byrd - an entirely different thing.
I disagree that only Gregorian chant is the perfect balance. Rather, I think sacred polyphony is the perfect balance between the simplicity and functionality of Gregorian chant, and the great and inspiring beauty of the orchestral settings. Remember, we are not talking about removing the Gregorian chant from the Mass; the propers can and should still be chanted even when a polyphonic setting is used for the ordinary of the Mass.
My problem is that I do not see any difference between the classical poliphonic Masses and the rock masses, both is entertainment over the Mystery of the Mass.
There is a difference, though - both are
not entertainment. Rock music is primarily popular entertainment. Orchestral settings of the Mass by the Classical masters is primarily serious art. But does it suit the Mass? Well, one argument is that Gregorian chant is purely liturgical, while orchestra Masses take something that was secular and put it into the liturgy. And that is somewhat true. But on the other hand, at the time these works were composed it was simply a matter of the same basic tools being used to create art in the secular and the sacred. But this is no different from visual art. Painting, sculpture, the same techniques applied to producing art for either. The difference was in the subject of the art. No one objects to beautiful statues and paintings in churches just because secular art was created in the same style. The point is that the subject of the art makes it sacred. Could not the same apply to music? I think in the time of Pius X, at the end of the Common Practice Era, the music of the world was such that he had good reason to do what he did. But things are different now. Music occupies a different place in the culture.
Another argument is that the complexity and length work against the Mass. But does anyone complain that complex art is too complex and distracting for the Mass? No. Properly, it enhances it by providing material for reflection to raise the mind and heart to God. But for music it is a bit different. When there is constant repetition and so much happening that the words cannot be understood or are removed from a meaninful expression
as words, I think that is not good. And very long settings can delay Mass unresonably. But those problems are not intrinsic to the music itself. There are many settings of the Mass by Haydn and Mozart, for example, that are no longer than chants, and are not disqualifyingly complex or distracting. The thing is that everyone is only familiar with the very vast works, like the Missa Solemnis by Beethoven and the Requiem by Mozart; but these are very special works.
So I think orchetral music has it's place for Mass at this point in history, if it is used correctly. Not the huge settings every day, but I don't think it is a problem to have Gregorian chant at most Masses and use sacred polyphony and even orchestral masses for special occasions.
