[ninenot]

OK--here's at least part of the story. The organ is preferred by Church authority (hundreds of cites available) because: 1) its variety of tones produced by different stops represent "all of creation" praising the Lord--birds, people, critters, etc. 2) It is activated by wind ---pneumos--breath--and is thus, 'natural,' as is the human voice (there's also some minor theological stuff here about pneumos/life, etc.) 3) Unlike many other instruments, the organ is not percussive (as is the piano and to a lesser extent the guitar)--the organ's keys do not have to be struck repeatedly to sustain tone; thus it is inherently less overtly rhythmic than those other instruments.

As to "good music:" First, it has to be art, thus beautiful and true: having perfection of form. If it has text, the music MUST illuminate the text. In music using text from the Mass or the Bible (sacred music) the text is the WORD--and obviously takes precedence over the music. Chant is regarded as THE pre-eminent song of the Church because it is beautiful, text-dependent, and 'universal.' I like to say that Chant is not masculine (e.g., not a march) and not feminine (squishy hymns.) It has no rhythm other than the text's.

[Desdemona]

Okay, then why all the resistence to organ and chant?

Frankly, chant is a thousand times easier to sing and the organ blends better with the voice. I'd rather use that. AND I got out the St. Gregory earlier - there's music for absolutely everything in there. SO what if it's in Latin...