• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
    • Feasts Website
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Progressive Solemnity

Fr. David Friel · December 21, 2014

ITHIN THE STRUCTURE of High Mass and Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form, the liturgical elements to be sung at a particular Mass are well established. With the loss of that structure in the Ordinary Form, there has come about a new principle, referred to as “progressive solemnity.” In this new model, the rule of the Church permits for only some elements of the Mass to be sung, decided by the priest and liturgical musicians.

In recent weeks, there has been some online discussion of “progressive solemnity.” It began, so far as I can tell, with an article posted by Fr. Thomas Kocik on NLM. Ben Yanke posted a nice response, also on NLM. I would like to add a perspective that has not surfaced in those two very good posts.

“Progressive solemnity” may be a fair theory for working in the Novus Ordo, but, in practice, is it perhaps a concept that is too often employed in reverse?

Quite commonly, priests & musicians ask the question, “What are we going to sing today?” It’s as if there is an assumption that a purely spoken Mass is the default base onto which we add the ornamentation of a little music here, a little music there. But, as the documents on sacred music take great pains to make clear, true liturgical music is never just “ornamentation.”

Would it not be better, more proper, more consonant with the view of Sacrosanctum Concilium, to view the fully sung liturgy as the default and to make that the norm from which we make adaptations?

HE VERY TERM “progressive solemnity,” I believe, is part of the problem. It makes it sound like we should be minimalists, starting with a tabula rasa rather than with the richness of totally sung liturgy. It also seems to advocate the simplistic approach that sprinkling music over the rite adds solemnity. In the Roman Rite, however, solemnity is added not so much by singing more elements, but by raising the form—the nature and style—of what is sung. This explains the existence of the ferial tones & solemn tones found in the missal.

This point has been made persuasively by Prof. William Mahrt, President of the CMAA:

The differentiation of the solemnity of days should be achieved principally through the kind of music employed, rather than how much. As a matter of principle, I would suggest that “progressive solemnity” does not properly serve the sung liturgy, since it omits the singing of certain parts of the Mass which should and could be sung and thus gives up on the achievement of a completely sung service. (Mahrt, The Musical Shape of the Liturgy, 168)

At the very least, if we are to adhere to the principle of progressive solemnity, we should first agree that our starting point is the fully sung Mass, not an entirely spoken Mass. Otherwise, we fall into what might better be called “regressive solemnity.” The fully sung liturgy is our root chord, so to speak, and the innumerable permutations of partially sung liturgy are its various positions.

The phrase “progressive solemnity” first appeared under the heading “Singing in the Office” in the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours (GILOH). It says there:

A celebration performed entirely with singing is commendable, provided that it has artistic and spiritual excellence; but it may be useful on occasion to apply the principle of “progressive solemnity.” There are practical reasons for this; there is also the fact that the various elements of liturgical celebration are not then treated indiscriminately, but each of them can be restored to its original meaning and genuine function. (GILOH, #273)

Of course, the selection of more solemn elements of the liturgy is not limited only to sacred music. Progressive solemnity can refer also to other matters, such as the number of candles on the altar, the nobility of the vestments worn, the length of the processions, etc.

After several decades in force, it is time for an evaluation of the merits of progressive solemnity. Arguments could be made in its favor on the basis that it is a practical solution and that its initial intention was to increase the amount of sacred music at Mass, in contrast with the restrictive High Mass/Low Mass model. The evidence, however, bears clear testimony that the principle of progressive solemnity—whether intentionally or not—has significantly reinforced the errant perception that music is an “extra” in the sacred liturgy. Who hasn’t heard the simplistic argument: “It’s just a ferial day. Why would we sing the [insert name of any Mass part]?”

All of this is why I see a degree of conflict inherent in this teaching from Sing to the Lord:

Music should be considered a normal and ordinary part of the Church’s liturgical life. However, the use of music in the Liturgy is always governed by the principle of progressive solemnity. (Sing to the Lord, #110)

Instead of adopting the view that “adding singing” to the Mass adds solemnity, would it not be better to take the view that “subtracting singing” from the Mass subtracts solemnity? When we embrace this fundamental shift in perspective, the principle of progressive solemnity loses some of its luster in its governance of our liturgy.

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Progressive Solemnity, Reform of the Reform, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Singing the Mass, USCCB Sing to the Lord Document on Music Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Fr. David Friel

Ordained in 2011, Father Friel is a priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and serves as Director of Liturgy at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    2-Voice Arr. • “Creator of the Starry Height”
    Do you direct a choir consisting of women or children only? (Some call this a “treble” choir.) Download a two-voice arrangement of Creator of the Starry Height set to the tune of IOANNES by clicking here and then scrolling to the bottom. In our times, this hymn is normally used during ADVENT, and the Latin title is: Cónditor alme síderum. It’s important to say “cónditor”—placing the accent on the antepenult—because ‘condítor’ in Latin means “one who embalms the dead.”
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Equal Voices” Choir Pieces
    My colleague, CORRINNE MAY, has posted some delightful compositions for equal voices: that is, choirs consisting of all men or all women. Included there are settings of the “Ave Maria” and “Tantum Ergo.” They strike me as relatively simple and not excessively lengthy. (In other words, within reach of volunteer singers.) Even better, all the scores have been made available as instant PDF downloads, completely free of charge. Bravo!
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Typo in the “Missale Romanum” (1962)
    The 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM was a transitional missal. It was on its way to becoming the 1970 version, but wasn’t there yet. It eliminated certain duplications, downplayed the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, expanded the role of laymen, minimized the Last Gospel, made many items optional, and so forth. Father Valentine Young spotted many typos in the 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM, especially incorrect accents. The Offertory Antiphon for this coming Sunday (OF kalendar) contains an error, citing the wrong verse from Psalm 118. It should be 118:107b, not 118:154. If you read verse 154, you’ll understand how that error crept in. [In this particular case, the error pre-dates the 1962 Missal, since the 1940s hand-missal by Father Lasance also gets it wrong.]
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    “Our Father” • Musical Setting?
    Looking through a Roman Catholic Hymnal published in 1859 by Father Guido Maria Dreves (d. 1909), I stumbled upon this very beautiful tune (PDF file). I feel it would be absolutely perfect to set the “Our Father” in German to music. Thoughts?
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    New Bulletin Article • “12 October 2025”
    My pastor requested that I write short articles each week for our parish bulletin. Those responsible for preparing similar write-ups may find a bit of inspiration in these brief columns. The latest article (dated 12 October 2025) talks about an ‘irony’ or ‘paradox’ regarding the 1960s switch to a wider use (amplior locus) of vernacular in the liturgy.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “American Catholic Hymnal” (1991)
    The American Catholic Hymnal, with IMPRIMATUR granted (25 April 1991) by the Archdiocese of Chicago, is like a compendium of every horrible idea from the 1980s. Imagine being forced to stand all through Communion (even afterwards) when those self-same ‘enlightened’ liturgists moved the SEQUENCE before the Alleluia to make sure congregations wouldn’t have to stand during it. (Even worse, everything about the SEQUENCE—including its name—means it should follow the Alleluia.) And imagine endlessly repeating “Alleluia” during Holy Communion at every single Mass. It was all part of an effort to convince people that Holy Communion was historically a procession (which it wasn’t).
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Random Quote

“Only against this background, of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, can one understand the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal after the liturgical reform. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist, as formulated by Trent, has lost its validity.”

— Cardinal Ratzinger, 2001

Recent Posts

  • 2-Voice Arr. • “Creator of the Starry Height”
  • PDF Download • Christmas Piece (SATB) — “Angels We Have Heard on High” with Text in Latin
  • “Equal Voices” Choir Pieces
  • A Practical Method of Projecting Solfege for Chant
  • PDF Downloads • Four (4) Simple Pieces in Harmony for Men’s Choirs

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.