It is, I think, worth observing that traditionally the Low Mass was not really developed or intended for the purpose of public celebration in the first place. That's what High Mass is for. But because it not possible to celebrate High Mass very frequently, and because Low Mass is boring and completely inaudible (I'm speaking in general terms here), and not particularly solemn, the Missa Cantata, which is a Low Mass technically and a High Mass in appearance, was developed. Later, permissions were granted to use incense at Missae Cantatae and so on; again, because people like it and it seems solemn. So it is not that "progressive solemnity" is based on "progressive participation," but rather, as I see it, that progressive solemnity and progressive participation are independently tied to the development and function of the different forms of Mass. Stripped-down celebrations are really intended for private, not public, Masses.

Of course, the outcome was that if you lived someplace where, for any of a variety of reasons, it was only possible to have, or for you to attend, Low Mass, then you might go practically your whole life without seeing incense or, for instance, the Asperges. As I understand it, one of the main goals in "loosening up" the rubrics on matters like these was because people seemed to want them -- not because people wanted to get rid of them whenever possible, even though that is largely what ended up happening. Likewise, your options for the sung propers in the OF were either (1) a choir capable of, and required to, execute all of them, or (2) zilch. Again, as I understand it the idea in the transition to the rubrics of the new Mass, where lesser portions of the Ordinary and Propers could be sung without requiring the whole to-do, was to allow nice things to be done that had previously been forbidden, less to allow things to be dropped that had previously been required.

And, really, this is in keeping with the way things developed in the old Mass. The progression was "We can't handle a Solemn High Mass, but could we at least sing the parts of the Mass?" --- Yes, the Missa Cantata was developed. "We still can't handle a Solemn High Mass, but can we please have incense?" -- Yes, by 1900 or so permission was granted for that too. One can imagine further development along these lines: "We can't handle all the Propers with the Tract and everything in our little church (or for our quick morning Mass), but can we at least sing the Introit, Kyrie, and Agnus Dei?" The modern rubrics allow for just such a thing, and you can see this principle reflected in Musicam Sacram. The first level are things that any congregation can do immediately: singing the short dialogues and the Lord's Prayer. The next level can be done by an unaccompanied, uncantored congregation that knows just a couple of simple settings: the Kyrie, Gloria, etc. The third level is where you start to reach things that would typically take accompaniment or require execution by a dedicated choir.

I'm not sure I see anything different in Sing to the Lord. First, it is not really true that the document equates progressive solemnity and progressive "participation," at least inasmuch as participation requires the congregation to be contributing. "For example," the document points out, "greater feasts such as Easter Sunday or Pentecost might suggest a chanted Gospel, but a recited Gospel might be more appropriate for Ordinary Time." Likewise Solemnities and Feasts may invite "[c]ertain musical selections [of] an extraordinary richness." So a Mass with an Ordinary by Byrd and all the readings sung might be appropriate for a great Solemnity, and inappropriate for some random Wednesday morning. Nor is there anything particularly "arbitrary" in the priorities given by Sing to the Lord. It asks for the dialogues and acclamations first (same as Musicam Sacram), then the Responsorial Psalm (a new thing to emphasize, but obviously the product of a few decades' recognition of how lame recited Responsorial Psalms are), then at least a hymn or two (for daily Masses on more important days) and hopefully the Proper antiphons, which are "to be esteemed and used especially."

Is that at all different from the principles we've always accepted? You would never pull out all the stops for some miscellaneous ferial day, would you? Even if previous documents had not spelled out a doctrine of progressive solemnity, it is clear that this is what was being practiced. You might have had an orchestra for All Saints or Christmas; your parish choir for a Sunday in Ordinary Time; and nothing at all for an average weekday.

Sorry if I've rambled and this seems disjointed, but I still haven't quite figured out what you think is odd or innovative about the current norms you've referenced. "Progressive solemnity" seems quite in keeping with the way the forms and add-ons of the TLM developed, and you seem to have misunderstood "progressive participation." None of the documents says that the more people can participate the more solemn your Mass is; it's that things like music and singing add to the solemnity of Mass (which we've always known), and the starting point for even small and unsupported congregations will be the simplest elements like the dialogues.

FNJ

What a beautiful discourse of truth.

But everyone else just sat there and no one, no one, complained. It was being present at the glory of the Transubstantiation. Whether or not we could see it or hear the words, we, like pilgrims to an apparition, were touched by it as those who go to Fatima are touched and even healed, without seeing or hearing the words of the Virgin.

This is a perfect expression of the awesome mystery of the Holy Sacrifice.

The people have nothing to add to the saving act of Christ but to bear each others burden and so fulfill the law.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the "low" said Mass is nothing but a "high" solemn Mass with some of the adornments removed? I just want to keep in mind which of the two is really the Church's standard.

"Red" does not equal a "rose," and "rose" does not equal "red." Progressive redness does not make a rose rosier. Though "participation" does not equal "solemnity" it is interesting to see how these ideals interpenetrate as they both can be internal and external.
I think these documents are really practical guidelines, the philosophy remains peripheral, resisting some of the deeper analysis.
The use of the term "solemnity" in SL gives purpose and direction "participation" and that alone is refreshing!

MaryAnn has a very good point here that ll need to understand.

STTL represents what US bishops who love the great music of the church and what US bishops who hate it have thrashed out among themselves and put on paper as guidelines for the US church. It, like a camel, is a horse that was designed by a committee. "One hump or two?" It fails for that reason to guide people in any what the best music is for the church and at the same time fails to guide people away from the worst music in the church.

Without even touching the issue of music, examine the issue of not wearing clerical garb. The choir is raised above the people in the liturgy and have always worn clerical garb. The finest choirs wear wings. They have said that choirs should not wear clerical garb. They have not been clear about why, though it would appear it is to prevent women from appearing in clerical garb.

So, without any explanation they write: "Cassock and surplice, being clerical attire, are not recommended as choir vesture."

This contradicts church policy. Without any explanation.

It is an imperfect and partial summary of the opposing forces in the US church. MaryAnn is absolutely correct.

Of course bishops who do not believe in angels could care less. It appears we may have a lot of them.

Which Cantate Domino: Pitoni? It's available at cpdl.org .

Oh-- I see there is a hymn book "With Joyful Lips" published by the Daughters of St. Paul in India. They're probably not operating in the same way as the usual publishers.

The choir has always worn clerical garb. There is no explanation in STTL why the choir should no longer be permitted wearing clerical garb unless there is a reason.

If the reason is that women are not to wear clerical garb, then say so. They totally failed to do this.

I am saying that for the bishops to deny a male choir of men of known piety and probity of life the right to wear clerical garb without justifying why reeks of the control of Amish Bishops. who rise every so often and read the rules. No discussion, no appeals.

This resulted, one week, with a sea of gasoline lawnmowers appearing in front yards of homes in Middlefield, Ohio. Amish homes, that is.

Can you cite any male choir that prior to Vat II that did not wear clerical garb if they were visible? I understood it was common practice.

Bruce is right. I experience the same thing, except sadly, some here think they belong to their own curia of local perogatives. The words I get is "we are different".

Indeed, for our parish Lenten mission, during which our weekday morning Masses were celebrated at the high altar with Gregorian chant propers, I chose catechetical sources based on their "freshness date" and place of origin.

Attached is one of the programs prepared for the daily Mass, Thursday, Lent Week IV, Year I. The catechesis is on the back cover.

Well done, Aris. Great program. Can I pass it along to Mike G?
Basically, most anything of value in SL is coming from authoritative docs. When you know those well enough, you can navigate SL and point folks to the sources at a prudent time.

Mary Ann, please feel free to pass it on to Mike.

I agree with you that SL has teeth inasmuch as it stands on authoritative teaching. Wherever it doesn't, it is perhaps more fruitful to parse its ambiguities "in light of sacred tradition" as it were, pointing to the norms of the Church and then tolerating local allowances based on the norms. And wherever local allowances are tolerated, they should be defined as such in every instance of their occurrence.

Adam:

If that is the totality of their wisdom combined... then that answers a lot of questions.

The only problem with your analogy to a lecture or a book, is that it is not presented as an opionion, it is presented as authoritative, just like the other previous 3 or 4 that "were" also authoritative. Authoritative documents that present themself as so should not come into question, especially if the subject they are addressing has not changed... ie, liturgy post VII. Yet the perspective keeps changing. I hear, "O well, MICW was good for its time".

Let's be real. Our adversary doesn't feed us lies. He feeds us truth mixed with lies. In fact, he is the King of Deceivers. So the problem I have with things like SttL is a lot of it is good and truthful, but between the lines there are distortions, which brings it onto a totally subjective platform, which automatically dismisses it as authoritative.

Jahaza: If memory serves -- and feel free to correct me here -- what you are saying would only apply post-1955(?), when the middle voice was abolished. Prior to that, you had the low voice (vox secreta), for the priest alone, the middle voice (vox submissa) for the servers, and the raised voice (vox sonora), for the congregation. Very little of the low Mass was actually to be said in the raised voice; I think permission to say the Last Gospel aloud at low Mass was only given in the 1920s.

And I can tell you, I personally have been to a low Mass and not heard a single word until "Corpus Christi custodiat animam tuam" as I was receiving Communion. It's certainly possible that that wasn't in accord with the rubrics (or that the priest just couldn't be bothered to speak up), but it was definitely an ... interesting experience.

Mark, without looking into it, I can't say off the top of my head. But luckily (for improvements in dentistry if nothing else) we are currently post-1955.

I've been to a Mass with liturgical dance, but I try hard not to judge the rite by how it's celebrated, but how it's supposed to be. :)