How does the EF (1962) differ from the Mass of the 1950's?
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    What exactly are the differences between the EF (1962) and the Mass that came before this? Why did the Pope pick the 1962 Mass? Is the
    EF (1962) a dialogue Mass? And what does that mean?

    I don't think this question has been addressed in the form.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    The addition of St. Joseph to the canon is one. Others?
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    With the EF (1962), is (was) the congregation encouraged (or expected) to participate with the altar servers responses? Is this congregational
    participation issue considered what constitutes a 'dialogue Mass'? Was/is this done with the 1962 Mass?
  • Jan
    Posts: 242
    The reason why I bring this up is there was a time (sometime in the early 1960's) when this was brought in for latin Masses. If this was done
    with the 1962 Mass, it really makes a difference when implementing a music program for the EF.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Congregational participation, as I understand it, was a gradual process. People were slowly beginning to get into the Dialog Mass, and then WHAM! people were expected to do everything. "Hermeneutic of Discontinuity" at work.

    I believe St. Joseph was the only change to the '62 Missal, but there may have been another change in the '50s that altered Holy Week.
  • The Good Friday prayer omits the word “perfidious” in MR 1962; it was present in all Missals from Trent until then.

    I believe there were substantial revisions of the rubrics as well.

    “De musica sacra” from 1958 describes a number of aspects of congregational participation in the Mass.
  • Comparing 1951 and 1962 Libers and what I have read, the pre-1955 Easter Vigil started at noon and incorporated twelve prophecies. The 1955 Holy Week revisions moved Easter Vigil to sundown and cut the prophecies down to four. There are other changes, I'm sure.

    But getting to Jan's specific question regarding a Dialogue Mass affecting music selection, here is the Wikipedia entry on the Dialogue Mass. According to the editors of the entry the Dialogue Mass is a variant of Low Mass, and the practice was well-established in certain countries almost 100 years ago.

    At first glance, it seems that a Dialogue Mass would impact music selection at the Introit (where the congregation recites the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar) and Offertory (with the "Orate Fratres...Suscipiat").

    If this is inaccurate, please let the forum know. (If there are any inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry, It might also be a good idea to become a Wikipedia editor.)
  • The recitation of the Confiteor immediately before the laity's reception of Holy Communion was dropped in 1962, I believe. There was a major reform of Holy Week in 1955 by Pope Pius XII--so much that pre-1955 Missals or Libers really can't be used without great difficulty for 1962 Missal Holy Week.

    Dialogue Mass was a matter of congregational participation, not a difference in the text of the Mass, and was a thrust of the pre-Vatican II liturgical movement. Somewhere, I have a circa 1962 sheet giving "three degrees" of dialogue Mass. The simplest being congregational responses to the Amens, Et cum spiritu tuo, and 'preface dialogue.' More advanced including congregational Pater noster, Mass ordinary, and even prayers at the foot of the altar and others. Use/non-use of these varied widely before 1962 and is hotly contested even today.
  • Further to Aristotle Esguerra's comments re. the Liber Usualis:

    The 1961 Liber Usualis No. 801 (online at musicasacra.com) has a section, “Changes in the Liber Usualis”, beginning on page Li. Unfortunately, it is a little disjointed and assumes one is familiar with the lingo of the Missale Romanum. Also, note that the changes are not incorporated into the body of the work; they simply are listed in this introductory section.

    A further source of confusion for those interested in the history of the rubrics is that the section begins with the statement, “As a result of the decree ‘Rubricae Breviarii et Missalis Romani’ of 25 July 1960 a number of changes have to be made in the present work.” This suggests the changes that follow date to ca. 1960. In fact many of them date to 1955, but the aforementioned decree explicitly incorporated and repeated them in 1960. If you have a copy of the 1959 edition of the Liber Usualis No. 801, you’ll find a “Changes” section for the 1955 changes. This section is absent in the 1956 edition.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,699
    As to why the 1962 Mass was chosen, it was the last form of the EF Latin Mass in use before Vatican II approved changes in the liturgy. If my memory is correct it was approved by John XXIII. The next missal I remember seeing after that was the 1965 English missal.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,050
    When were the words of consecration altered from this formula over the chalice?

    Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti: Mysterium Fidei; Qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

    "For this is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins."

    This one truly is disconcerting to me over everything else.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 727
    Pope Paul VI changed the words of consecration in his 1969 Apostolic Constitution "Missale Romanum."

    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

    Sam Schmitt
  • Skitalets
    Posts: 25
    Another change from 1955 to 1962 (actually 1960, I think) was a massive change in the system for ranking feasts. Before the 1960s, the system included doubles, semidoubles, and simples, with doubles divided into doubles first class, doubles second class, greater doubles, and doubles. The system after 1960 was different -- first class feasts, second class feasts, and third class feasts, with some big changes to how feasts ranked relative to one another.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Yes, can someone explain how the modern system relates to the old one? My Gradual only has "duplicibus", "semiduplicibus", and so on.
  • Skitalets
    Posts: 25
    Gavin --

    I can try. I haven't ever looked very closely at how lots of specific feasts are classified in the old system vs. the new one.

    But basically, the ranks of old feasts (double, semidouble, etc.) related to whether the antiphons were said in full before and after the Psalms ("doubling" them, hence the feast was a "double") or if they were only said up to the dagger before the Psalm and in full afterwards.

    In the old universal kalendar, you'll find many, many feasts were doubles. (By "old" I mean the post-1911, pre-1955 kalendar used in the Breviarium Romanum and, where I encountered it first, the Anglican Breviary.) I can't discern any real pattern as to why some feasts were ranked as semidoubles or simples instead of doubles.

    The system in the new kalendar is fairly straightforward, though. All feasts of non-biblical saints, with the sole exception (I think) of St Lawrence, are classed as Memorials. There are a few non-biblical events or structures that are commemorated as feasts or solemnities, though, such as the Feast of St John Lateran or the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.

    However, local kalendars may change this, of course. For instance, the patronal feast of a parish will be a Solemnity, no matter whether the saint is biblical or not.

    So in any case, from what I can tell the universal kalendar of the post-Conciliar liturgy is arranged by an internally consistent system that has little reference to the pre-Conciliar kalendar system. Many feasts that were relatively solemn in the old kalendar (doubles) were ranked down to memorials in the new kalendar -- Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, St. Benedict, etc.

    I hope that's helpful.
  • tdunbar
    Posts: 120
    btw, The English Hymnal's musical editor was Ralph Vaughn Williams