Solemn High Mass at Mission Santa Clara

I started this post the same day of the Mass, February 21, 2009...

There was a special Solemn High Mass celebrated today at Mission Santa Clara by Monsignor R. Michael Schmitz of the Institute of Christ the King in honor of his visit to the Institute's apostolates in the area.

3 choirs were present (St. Athanasius School, scholas from St. Margaret Mary and the oratory)--there were some rough spots, but in general they sang quite well, and I was considering visiting Oakland as a result.

Fr. Moreau was acting as Deacon. I do not know who was subdeacon, but he was Asian.

There were a lot of white chapel veils among the faithful, but not many nubile women (except those who were in choir).

The reception was rather packed, so I took off... I didn't talk to Msgr. Schmitz as a result, but what would I really have to say to him?

Next month [now: next Saturday] the Institute is sponsoring a pilgrimage to Mission San Jose, up in Fremont, which will include a Solemn High Mass. I may attend. From the California Catholic Daily calendar:

Fremont: Traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated at Mission San Jose, 43300 Mission Blvd. (at Washington Blvd.) on Sat., Mar. 21, 10 a.m., in honor of St. Benedict, co-patron of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Celebrant, Canon Jean Marie Moreau, Episcopal Delegate for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in the Diocese of Oakland.

I did not know that the missions of Alta and Baja California were originally entrusted to the Jesuits. Did they lose the missions because of the political difficulties of the time and the hostiliy of certain members of the political elites in the various kingdoms, including Spain? (Which ultimately led to the expulsion/suppression of the order?)

I imagine photos of the Mass will eventually be posted. One of the photographers mentioned a website to someone who asked, but I cannot remember what the url is. There are probably more photos posted there. Some photos of the Mass at the Institute's official American website.

The Institute's international website.

Some thoughts on the usus antiquior and the reform of the reform:

Over at Mere Comments a while back someone (an Eastern Catholic) had stated that the Missal of Pius V had been taken from the practices and rubrics of the Mass as it was celebrated by the Roman Curia? I think this point was also made by somoone in his book--either Lazslo Dobzsay or Alcuin Reid. I'll have to verify this piece of history. But if it is the case, what modifications or even abbreviations were introduced in the Missal of Pius V? How did celebration of the Roman Rite outside the Curia, before the Council of Trent, differ?

I like how the movements of the ministers of the alter and the servers in Eastern-rite liturgies seem more fluid, relaxed, and yet are still dignified. Often, the movements Roman-rite clerics and servers seem to be too stiff. How much of this custom is due to true Latin restraint and sobriety, and how much of it is due to a strict adherence to rubrics?

Is it the case that no instructions were given for what the laity were supposed to be doing during the liturgy until only recently? (Where do instructions in hand missals come from?) It is still common to see the laity acting the same way during a Solemn High Mass as they would for a low Mass, even though they should be standing for the Introit, and so on.

And if the prayers at the foot of the altar are really for the priest and the altar servers alone, it is understandable why there would be a "second" confiteor before communion, as the laity would not have been required to say the "first" one. While one can understand why the laity would be encouraged to follow the prayers at the foot of the altar, so that they could participate more in the liturgy, does this not add to the confusion over what the laity should be doing? E.g. singing, or at least meditating upon, the Introit?

I am reminded of the comment made by Joseph II in Amadeus: "Too many notes." There are times when I listen to polyphony and I think it is too ornate, distracting, and ultimately limiting to the participation of the faithful, who should be singing the Ordinary of the Mass (Gloria, Kyrie, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) as much as possible. It should not be a surprise then that there was some debate over whether it should be permitted during the liturgy or not.

I appreciated Msgr. Schmitz's chanting of the prayers, but while I am still torn between Latin and some hieratic version of the vernacular as the language of the liturgy, I continue to lean towards the latter.

I still need to a side-by-side comparison of the traditional Roman rite and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. What else gives the impression that the laity are singing (and praying out loud) more in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, besides the various litanies? As for the propers in the Roman rite, should these be limited to the schola only? Or should the people be encouraged to sing these as well?

I had thought that all Sundays in the old calendar were first class feasts. I was wrong. Why are some Sundays higher than others? And why aren't all Sundays first class feasts? Are all Sundays on the new calendar Solemnities?

Google Books: Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy: The The Principles of Liturgical Reform and Their Relation to the Twenthieth-Century Liturgical Movement Prior to the Second Vatican Council

The Bugnini-Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform, by Lazslo Dobzsay
Critical Reflections on the Bugnini Liturgy: The Divine Office