Progressive Solemnity as a Basis for the Sung Mass in the Ordinary Form

“Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone”. (Musicam Sacram #7)

The principle known as progressive solemnity is one of those concepts that is often referred to in liturgical music but is very often misunderstood or at least poorly or incompletely understood. With the call for greater assembly participation in the music of the Mass as the reform of the liturgy progressed, there may have been some concern that the hierarchy of the various parts of the Mass, particularly those that were to be sung, might be lost. This concern can be seen in passages of Musicam Sacram such as that quote above, as well as in passages that emphasize the sung dialogues and assembly responses as being of principal importance. Absent the formal distinctions of the Low Mass, the Missa Cantata and the High Mass, and with the many options available in the 1970 Missal, the formal schema of progressive solemnity was proposed as a guide to what parts of the Mass might be sung in a given situation in order to impart a corresponding distinction of forms in the Mass.

The 2006 USCCB document on liturgical music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, develops the concept of progressive solemnity to a greater degree than previous documents had done, and gives the following instructions concerning the principle of progressive solemnity:

115. Singing by the gathered assembly and ministers is important at all celebrations. Not every part that can be sung should necessarily be sung at every celebration; rather “preference should be given to those [parts] that are of greater importance.”

a. Dialogues and Acclamations
Among the parts to be sung, preference should be given “especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the lector, with the people responding, or by the pries and people together.”90 This includes dialogues such as “God, come to my assistance; Lord make haste to help me” in the Office, or “The Lord be with you; And also with you” in the Mass. The dialogues of the Liturgy are fundamental because they “are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.”91 By their nature, they are short and uncomplicated and easily invite active participation by the entire assembly. Every effort should therefore be made to introduce or strengthen as a normative practice the singing of the dialogues between the priest, deacon, or lector and the people. Even the priest with very limited singing ability is capable of chanting “The Lord be with you” on a single pitch. The acclamations of the Eucharistic Liturgy and other rites arise from the whole gathered assembly as assents to God’s Word and action. The Eucharistic acclamations include the Gospel Acclamation, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation, and the Great Amen. They are appropriately sung at any Mass, including daily Mass and any Mass with a smaller congregation. Ideally, the people should know the acclamations by heart and should be able to sing them readily, even without accompaniment.

b. Antiphons and Psalms
The psalms are poems of praise that are meant, whenever possible, to be sung.92 The Psalter is the basic songbook of the Liturgy. Tertullian witnesses to this when he says that in the assemblies of the Christians, “the Scriptures are read, the psalms are sung, sermons are preached.”Psalms have a prominent place in every Office of the Liturgy of the Hours. The Responsorial Psalm in the Liturgy of the Word of the Mass and of other rites “holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.” The Entrance and Communion chants with their psalm verses serve to accompany the two most important processions of the Mass: the entrance procession, by which the Mass begins, and the Communion procession, by which the faithful approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. Participation in song on the part of the assembly is commended during both of these important processions, as the People of God gather at the beginning of Mass and as the faithful approach the holy altar to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

c. Refrains and Repeated Responses
The Liturgy also has texts of a litanic character that may be sung as appropriate. These include the Kyrie and Agnus Dei of the Mass, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful at Mass or the intercessions at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, and the Litany of the Saints in various rites.

d. Hymns
A hymn is sung at each Office of the Liturgy of the Hours, which is the original place for strophic hymnody in the Liturgy. At Mass, in addition to the Gloria and a small number of strophic hymns in the Roman Missal and Graduale Romanum, congregational hymns of a particular nation or group that have been judged appropriate by the competent authorities mentioned in the GIRM, nos. 48, 74, and 87, may be admitted to the Sacred Liturgy. Church legislation today permits, as an option, the use of vernacular hymns at the Entrance, Preparation of the Gifts, Communion, and Recessional. Because these popular hymns are fulfilling a properly liturgical role, it is especially important that they be appropriate to the liturgical action. In accord with an uninterrupted history of nearly five centuries, nothing prevents the use of some congregational hymns coming from other Christian traditions, provided that their texts are in conformity with Catholic teaching and they are appropriate to the Catholic Liturgy.


Although it has been argued to the contrary, it is obvious to me that the above ordering of the sung parts of the Mass into these groups is intended as an ordering of them by importance and thus their priority (hierarchical), otherwise there would have been no point in saying “preference should be given to those parts that are of greater importance”. Further, if this ordering into groups by importance is to have any meaning, it would have to be true that ALL of the selections in the first group of dialogues and acclamations are of greater importance than ANY of the selections in the second group of antiphons and psalms, and ALL of the selections in the second group would be of greater priority than ANY of the selections in the third group of refrains and repeated responses, and so on down through the various groups. It is not specified anywhere if there are any selections within the groups themselves that are of higher priority than other selections within the same group, although common sense might lead one to conclude, for instance, that within the second grouping of antiphons and psalms there would be greater importance attached to the Responsorial Psalm within the Liturgy of the Word than to the Offertory Antiphon.

Following the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1970, there was considerable confusion regarding the ordering of the musical elements of the Mass, and the parallel development of a liturgical music industry that emphasized compositions based on the larger scale texts for the Opening Hymn, Gloria, Responsorial, Offertory Hymn, Communion Hymn, Recessional Hymn, rather than the shorter snippets of text that comprise the dialogues and orations had the unfortunate effect of giving greater musical emphasis to some parts of the Mass which are of lesser importance in the liturgical form.

An even more unfortunate consequence of this misplaced priority has been the undue emphasis on congregational singing of hymns rather than on singing the liturgical dialogues that are the foundation of the Roman Rite liturgy, an emphasis that has developed to such a degree that most clergy and even many liturgical musicians are under the impression that a liturgy with minimal music is one in which the Processional and Recessional Hymn and maybe the Sanctus are sung, or perhaps a Processional Hymn and the Responsorial Psalm, or maybe just a Processional Hymn. I refer to this rather random selection of sung parts of the Mass without regard to their priority as the a la carte approach to liturgical music, where all of the possible sung options are seen as having equal value and status, or worse yet where the congregational hymn takes the place of greatest importance. This approach is precisely contrary to that given in the liturgical books and leads to the opposite of progressive solemnity, creating instead a schema in which distinctions between degrees of the sung Mass are arbitrary and often indistinguishable and where less important parts are more often sung than those of greater priority.

So if the principles laid down in Musicam Sacram and expanded upon in the USCCB document Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship were followed closely, taking into account the priorities of the various sung elements of the Mass, what would Masses of various degrees of solemnity look like? How can the categorization of sung parts according to their liturgical priorities guide the selection of what parts of the Mass are to be sung in various situations and result in a meaningful application of progressive solemnity? I would suggest that an application of the principles set out above result in four basic categories of Mass roughly corresponding to the four categories of sung parts of the Mass detailed in Sing to the Lord. Of course, these four basic categories would be in addition to a Mass in which nothing is sung. I have included a brief explanation of each of these categories and a representative set of possible selection of sung parts for each. In places where I have indicated the use of the Missal Chants it would also be equally valid to use some other approved setting: this is not so much a question of the style or the promotion of one musical vision over another, but rather it is simply a question of which parts of the Mass should be sung in view of their role in the liturgy. I would also be interested to hear some ideas about what to call such various types of sung Mass in the Ordinary Form so as not to be confused with the established forms already in existence in the Extraordinary Form.

Mass with Minimal Sung Parts

Entrance Antiphon– Recited Antiphon or Silence

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Recited Confiteor and Kyrie or form B or C

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Recited in alternation with assembly

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Offertory - Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Recited

Communion Antiphon - Recited Antiphon


Mass with Sung Antiphons and Psalms

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Recited Confiteor and Kyrie or form B or C

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Recited

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP


Mass with Sung Litanies

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or Recited

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Prayer of the Faithful - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or Recited

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP


Mass with Hymns

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Opening Dialogue – ” The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting

Gloria – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting or recited

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Prayer of the Faithful - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Recessional - A hymn appropriate to the liturgical action or instrumental recessional or silence


Looking at the four hypothetical Masses detailed above, and it is important to add here that there are a great number of possible variations within each so long as the general principle is followed that ALL of the main components of the categories of greater priority be sung before ANY of the components of a category of lesser priority are sung, we find eliminated that all-too-common practice of singing the Four Hymns and perhaps the Responsorial Psalm while reciting most or all of the dialogues and the Sanctus. For this alone I find enough reason to advocate for such an approach to determining which sung options are to be chosen. However, a closer look at the above examples also reveals some problematic features that may lead one to ask if some revision of the categories as described in Sing to the Lord would be necessary if they are to be used in any meaningful way to determine the order of selections to be sung as proposed here.

To begin with, there is an inconsistency in the placing of the various sung parts of the Mass into specific categories. Some, such as the dialogues and acclamations are placed according to their liturgical role and the importance of their texts, while others, such as the Gloria and the Kyrie, are categorized by their supposed musical form (A hymn and a litany), with little regard for their historical designation as part of the Ordinary of the Mass. There is good reason to dispute the claim that the Kyrie and Agnus Dei are texts with a litanic character to begin with, and the placement of these in a category distinct from the rest of the Ordinary simply because they employ a three-fold repetition should be seriously questioned. The Gloria, while certainly a hymn, is also certainly a very different type of hymn in the Mass than those hymns that are frequently substituted for the antiphons, and the placement of the Gloria alongside sung elements of a significantly lower priority results in the fragmentation of the Ordinary across three different categories. Slightly modifying the categories given in Sing to the Lord such that the Gloria, Kyrie and Agnus Dei belong to the same category that includes the rest of the Ordinary and the Dialogues while entirely eliminating the third category of refrains and repeated responses and expanding the last category to encompass hymns and other various optional or substitute elements unique to specific liturgies such as the Litany of the Saints, Sequences and The Exsultet, the categories then would look something like the following:

a. The Dialogues and the Ordinary
b. Psalms and Antiphons (Propers)
c. Hymns and other elements unique to specific liturgies

This organization of the sung parts would be simpler and would have the added benefit of creating two general types of sung Mass for most Sundays– A Mass in which the Dialogues and some or all of the Ordinary are sung, and one in which all of the Dialogues and Ordinary are sung and some or all of the Psalms and Antiphons are sung. There would then be an expanded form of the second type of sung Mass for more solemn Feast Days or Solemnities (Easter, Christmas, Pentecost), where all of the Dialogues and Ordinary would be sung, along with all of the Psalms and Antiphons plus the addition of specific texts for these larger celebrations to be sung as well. This would seem to make more sense and comes about as a result of a very minor modification of the categories already in existence.

Some will argue that since hymns are substitutes for the Proper Antiphons at Mass, they should be a part of category b and not a distinct category of lower priority. There are two compelling arguments against this suggestion. First, the claim is not entirely true since there are legitimate options in the Mass where a hymn is specifically indicated, such as GIRM #86:

86. While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun, its purpose being to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices, to show gladness of heart, and to bring out more clearly the “communitarian” character of the procession to receive the Eucharist. The singing is prolonged for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.73 However, if there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion Chant should be ended in a timely manner.

In this case, and arguably in the singing of a hymn for the recessional, hymns are legitimately used in liturgical roles where they are not substitutes for Proper Antiphons. This is not to suggest that they can’t be used as substitutes for Proper Antiphons in any case, but rather that their use in the role indicated in GIRM #86, their established use at the recessional, AND their substitution for the Proper Antiphons are all of lower priority than the singing of the Dialogues, Ordinary and the actual Antiphons and Psalms of the Mass. This suggestion is reinforced by the passage that immediately follows the description of the categories in Sing to the Lord:

117. Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, “the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”96 The Christian faithful are to be led to an ever deeper appreciation of the psalms as the voice of Christ and the voice of his Church at prayer.

Referring back to GIRM #86 which I cited above, while most of the heated discussion surrounding the revision of this and related passages in the GIRM centered on whether it was specifically indicating that the Entrance, Offertory and Communion “chants” were to be actual chant, or whether what was meant was simply a “song”, it occurred to me that there might be something more subtle being put into play. GIRM #86 creates an actual role in the Mass for the hymn, albeit a rather low-priority role. But this may be precisely the intent as this specifically indicated use for the hymn, along with its long-established use at the recessional, also a low-priority role as this is entirely optional and not a substitute for another, higher priority antiphon, and finally the admonitions in SttL 117 and GIRM 41 all reinforce the notion that while hymns can have a legitimate role in the liturgy, it is a role of distinctly lower priority than most other parts of the Mass that can be sung, and the substitution of hymns for the Proper Antiphons is similarly of lower priority than the use of the actual antiphons of the Mass.

Such a low-priority for the substitution of hymns for antiphons would indicate their use in far fewer circumstances than is generally the case now, and would ostensibly apply to specific situations where such a substitution would actually be advantageous, such as the use of a hymn such as “O Come All Ye Faithful” at Christmas, “All Glory Laud and Honor” on Palm Sunday and perhaps “Jesus Christ is Risen Today” at the Mass for Easter. In such situations, the substitution of a hymn for the indicated antiphon would take place in a liturgical schema where nearly everything else that could be sung in the Mass would be sung, and the hymns would not necessarily be sung at the exclusion of the antiphons, but perhaps in addition to them due to the large scale nature of such liturgies. In such instances, hymns would expand and ornament the liturgical form rather than reducing it by pushing out other more important sung parts. Such would be the goal of a more enlightened understanding of the role of hymns in the liturgy, where more recent developments such as the distinction made in GIRM #86 and the placing of hymns in a lower priority category than the Psalms and Antiphons could have a major positive impact via the application of progressive solemnity to the liturgy as envisioned in Musicam Sacram and expanded upon in Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship.

Returning to my original point, I would suggest that the meaningful application of progressive solemnity to the liturgy, at least as is given to us in Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, requires that the various categories of sung parts be both hierarchical (ordered by priority) and exclusive (all parts of greater priority would be sung before any parts of lesser priority are sung), and that applying such a hierarchical ordering of sung parts, which has significant historical precedence in both liturgical law and liturgical practice, results in a sung Ordinary Form Mass that is significantly different from current practice in most parishes.

It is my hope that there might be some attention given to this very important aspect of the Ordinary Form Mass as it is developing during our lifetime, and that there might be a corresponding move away from the a la carte approach to selecting the sung options for Mass. Recent liturgical developments would seem to indicate a move in the direction of re-establishing the prioritized ordering of sung parts in the liturgy corresponding to the re-establishment of hierarchical orderings of liturgical roles for various ordained and lay ministers. The connection between the two cannot be dismissed and I would expect that musical priorities for the liturgy will be influenced to a greater degree by the organic move towards a more distinct hierarchical ordering of the liturgy in general than by any legislative means.