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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.