Long ago, after slogging through a fair stack of BCL Newsletters of old (at the insistence of a singularly unenlightened Grad school prof), I concluded that "progressive solemnity" was simply a code word for "we don't like this High Mass/Low Mass business anymore". One perhaps can appreciate a more gradated approach to music in eucharistic worship. Unfortunately, in jettisoning the distinction, we also lost the impetus to aspire to anything more aesthetically noble than an ever narrowing expression of the status quo. A victory for the populists (i.e., iconoclasts), but a defeat for those who value the riches of our sacred patrimony and the Church's glorious sacrifice of praise.

Beware, then, those who pretentiously designate this or that element of the Mass more or less important than another. In practice, anything deemed theoretically less important becomes, in due course, expendable.

Richard,

Actually, I have always thought that progressive solemnity is an idea that makes sense and squares well with the idea of preserving liturgical use of, say, polyphonic Mass Ordinaries and the like. But, your point of view seems interesting....hm. I had never thought it questionable to designate one part of the Mass as being more important than another. Certainly every major document on music in modern times takes that approach.

Chonak,

There are many citations of Musicam sacram in the article.


I wrote to the author requesting an explanation, but I haven’t heard anything yet.

"Progressive" solemnity means presiding at a Clown Mass without a wig.