It is well documented how the music we are now calling "acceptable" classical or traditional music, when new was also likewise condemned as worldly, sensual, and even demonic. The violin was even called "the devil's fiddle", and the great pipe-organ, "the devil's bagpipe"; both of which would lead to dancing in the church. The piano was also rejected as a "secular instrument" and was later associated with "ragtime". The augmented fourth chord was said to be possessed of the devil (yet since then it is used extensively in the Church), and classical composers were denounced as producing "wild insanities" without "form or meaning" (See Miller, Contemporary Christian Debate, p.28)Wrong again.
Over simplistic and revisionist. These styles were not considered inappropriate for the public ear, or even carnal. They were not employed in the church because it would violate the Scriptural mandate for simplicity and prohibition of exhibitionism.
Where do you get this tripe?
People used to plainchant and other simpler styles would naturally look down on polyphonic styles which include classical and most everything afterward, as well as various instruments they were not used to, or had associated with bad things. This is basically how people reacted to everything new or different (and right here shows a problem in the "historic" Church's attitude, which continues today).
So again, it is you who have revised history, out of nowhere.