sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cathedraticum, Catholic catechesis, Catholic devotions, Catholic liturgy, Edmund Bishop, English Missal

THE UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic : A Neglected Catechetical Text of the Third Plenary Council of

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the of the School of and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

© Copyright

All Rights Reserved By John H. Osman Washington, D.C.

2015

A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the : A Neglected Catechetical Text of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore

John H. Osman, Ph.D.

Director: Joseph M. White, Ph.D.

At the 1884 Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, the US Catholic commissioned

a national prayer titled the Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity and the widely-known Baltimore Catechism. This study examines the Manual’s genesis, contents, and

publication history to understand its contribution to the Church’s teaching efforts.

To account for the Manual’s contents, the study describes genres developed in the British Isles that shaped similar publications for use by American Catholics. The study considers the critiques of bishops and others concerning US-published prayer , and episcopal to address their weak theological content. To improve understanding of the

Church’s , the bishops commissioned a prayer book for the laity containing selections

from Roman liturgical books. The study quantifies the text’s sources from liturgical and

devotional books. The book’s compiler, Rev. Clarence Woodman, C.S.P., adopted the English manual prayer book genre while most of the book’s content derived from the Roman ,

Breviary, and Ritual, albeit augmented with highly regarded English and US prayers and

instructions. With archival sources, the study recounts the Manual’s publication history. Lacking

a national organization to carry out their decrees, the bishops delegated publication and

marketing to the Catholic Publication Society, which obtained the book’s ownership but soon

dissolved, signifying a failure of episcopal oversight.

By comparing the book’s instructions on the to those in the ’s

Roman Catechism, the study establishes the Manual’s contribution to the Church teaching efforts and relationship to the Baltimore Catechism. Unlike the influential catechism, the Manual commanded limited circulation and influence but, aiming to propagate the Church’s liturgy, foreshadowed the twentieth-century and the .

This dissertation by John H. Osman fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Philosophy approved by Joseph M. White, Ph.D., as Director, and by Michael Witczak, S.L.D., and Margaret Schreiber, S.T.D. as Readers.

______Joseph M. White, Ph.D., Director

______Michael Witczak, S.L.D.,

______Margaret Schreiber, S.T.D., Reader

ii

To Helen Rose, my companion

iii

Non tam quidem nudis verbis et oratione, quam inflammato quodam pietatis studio explicanda sunt, ut ea in animis intimisque fidelium cogitationibus inserere videantur. - 1566 Council of Trent Catechism (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 26)

[The ’s teaching] is something to be given them not so much in the cold language of formal instruction, as rather in the light and warmth of genuine piety. Only thus will the minds and hearts of the faithful be really touched. - 1985 English translation by Robert Bradley, SJ

iv Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... x INTRODUCTION ...... 1 ONE ...... 12 CONTEXT AND ORIGINS and Catechisms ...... 13 Catechesis and Prayer Books ...... 16 Prayer Book Genres ...... 18 Prayer Book Reform in the ...... 36 The Third Plenary Council of 1884 ...... 44 The Publication of an Authorized Prayer Book ...... 52 Conclusion ...... 70 CHAPTER TWO ...... 71 CONTENT An Overview of the Roman Content and the Book’s Structure ...... 72 Major English Sources ...... 93 US Sources ...... 101 Conclusion ...... 108 CHAPTER THREE ...... 110 The Manual’s Launch ...... 112 The Dissolution of the Catholic Publication Society (CPS) ...... 124 CPS and Benziger ...... 132 The New Owner: Rev. James Luke Meagher ...... 135 Calls for Revision ...... 150 A Manual Lawsuit ...... 152 The Manual in the Twentieth Century ...... 156 The Manual’s Administration ...... 163 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 169 CATECHESIS Liturgical-Catechetical Church Documents ...... 170 The Roman Catechism and Liturgical Catechesis ...... 176 Disposition and Ceremonies ...... 185 A Qualitative Analysis ...... 192 Predecessor to the US Liturgical Movement ...... 208

v

CHAPTER FIVE ...... 215 CONCLUSION APPENDIX ONE...... 227 THIRD PLENARY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE PRAYER BOOK DECREES APPENDIX TWO ...... 234 MANUAL OF PRAYERS BUSINESS AGREEMENT APPENDIX THREE ...... 236 TESTIMONIALS FROM AND BISHOPS [ON THE MANUAL OF PRAYERS] APPENDIX FOUR ...... 247 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The Sacraments in General ...... 247 ...... 250 ...... 255 ...... 258 ...... 268 Extreme Unction ...... 276 Matrimony ...... 277 ...... 280

vi List of Illustrations

Figure 1. Lawrence Kehoe ...... 54 Figure 2. Rev. Clarence Eugene Woodman...... 59 Figure 3. CPS stationary advertising British Isle business affiliations...... 99 Figure 4. Manual of Prayers announcement in the July 1889 CPS trade list...... 121 Figure 5. John Murphy 1887-1890 sales: Baltimore Catechism and Manual of Prayers...... 123 Figure 6. Top US publishers of Catholic books, 1881-1885, 1886-1890, and 1891-1895...... 132 Figure 7. Rev. James Luke Meagher ...... 135 Figure 8. Roman Catechism, Manual of Prayers, and Baltimore Catechism - instructions’ word count...... 184 Figure 9. Focus of Catechesis for the Sacraments ...... 185 Figure 10. Focus of Catechesis for the Sacraments in General ...... 248 Figure 11. Focus of Catechesis for Baptism ...... 251 Figure 12. Focus of Catechesis for Confirmation ...... 255 Figure 13. Focus of Catechesis for Eucharist ...... 258 Figure 14. Focus of Catechesis for Penance ...... 268 Figure 15. Focus of Catechesis for Extreme Unction ...... 276 Figure 16. Focus of Catechesis for Matrimony ...... 278

vii List of Tables

Table 1. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for quick or frequent use ...... 77 Table 2. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for less frequent use ...... 81 Table 3. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for life events ...... 88 Table 4. Manual of Prayers: Reference Chapter ...... 92 Table 5. Manual of Prayers: Instructions ...... 98 Table 6. Sacraments’ Instructions in Roman Catechism and Third Plenary Council Books ..... 182 Table 7. Third Plenary Council prayer book articles ...... 227 Table 8. Catechesis on the Sacraments in General ...... 247 Table 9. Catechesis on Baptism ...... 250 Table 10. Catechesis on Confirmation ...... 255 Table 11. Catechesis on Eucharist ...... 258 Table 12. Catechesis on Penance ...... 268 Table 13. Catechesis on Extreme Unction ...... 276 Table 14. Catechesis on Matrimony ...... 277

viii List of Abbreviations

AAB Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore

AACIN Archives of the Archdiocese of

AANY Archives of the Archdiocese of

AASPM Archives of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis

ACUA American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives

ADA Archives of the of Albany

ADS Archives of the Diocese of Syracuse

APSL Daughters of Charity Archives of the Province of St. Louise

ASCEP Archivio Storico della Congregazione per l'Evangelizzazione dei Popoli

ASVSY Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arch. Deleg. Stati Uniti, Posiz. 6, Sezioni IX (Diocesi-Syracuse)

AUSC Archives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

BC A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore or Baltimore Catechism

CPA Christian Press Association

CPS Catholic Publication Society

NARKC National Archives at City

NYCC New York County Clerk, Old Records and Archival Material

PFA Paulist Fathers Archives, Washington, DC

RC Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus or Roman Catechism

UNDA Archives of the University of Notre Dame

ix Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the loving assistance of my wife Helen.

She has patiently supported my doctoral studies and shared in its struggles and discoveries. With

her as patron, spiritual partner, mentor, and co-worker in the vineyard, we continue to sanctify

life in the domestic church with God’s grace.

Reading an article by Godfrey Diekmann, OSB, introduced me to the Manual of Prayers

early in my doctoral endeavors. In my first research paper, Berard Marthaler, OFM Conv,

professor emeritus at the Catholic University of America (CUA) and an icon in US catechetics, identified the topic’s potential. He set me on this research path, shared my passion for baseball,

and curmudgeonly asked questions. He remains the sole person I have met with knowledge

of the US bishops’ prayer book. To my sorrow, he died before completion of this dissertation.

I met Father Marthaler the same semester my father, Bob Osman, died. It was as if Dad

handed me off to him. Both taught and adopted new technologies. My father, known as “Sarge”

to his electronics students, became one of the first US permanent . Thanks Dad for

setting me on the path of faith, education, technology, and instilling within me optimism for

humanity!

A great topic and research abilities aren’t sufficient in CUA’s School of Theology and

Religious Studies. My dissertation director, Joseph M. White, historian of US Catholicism,

insisted I develop context and write concisely. I am a better historian and writer because of his

persistent and patient coaching. More importantly, I have gained a good friend. Additional

colleagues at CUA provided excellent liturgical and catechetical formation for this undertaking. I

am especially indebted to my readers, Rev. Michael Witczak, for providing guidance through a

x myriad of liturgical books, and Margaret Schreiber, OP, for catechetical advice and helping me navigate the CUA system.

Historical research provided an opportunity to visit numerous archives. My travels to places near and far made research adventuresome. As an added bonus, the archival staffs took an interest in aspects of my work. The staff of the American Catholic History Research Center and

University Archives at CUA, especially Jane Stoeffler, Maria Mazzenga, and John Shepherd, responded to numerous requests. Lenore Rouse, curator of CUA’s Rare Books & Special

Collections of the John K. Mullen of Denver , cheerfully searched for uncatalogued nineteenth-century prayer books and catechisms in its extensive inventory. Denise Eggers, archivist of the Paulist Archives in Washington, DC, and Tricia Pyne and Alison Foley of the

Associated Archives of St. Mary’s Seminary & University, Baltimore, hosted me numerous times for research in their rich collections. Katherine Nuss, archive services manager of the

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, twice procured boxes from offsite storage and did not pull punches with her jokes. At the Archives of the Archdiocese of New York, St. Joseph’s

Seminary, Yonkers, Rev. Michael Morris provided key indexes before my trip, saving me considerable time. His hospitality and Kate Feighery’s valuable assistance resulted in a windfall.

I profited from the University of Notre Dame Archives’ online tools and Kevin Cawley’s tremendous assistance during my visit, especially the digitization of Lawrence Kehoe’s . Wilson D. Miscamble, CSC, hosted my stay at Moreau Seminary, and guided me around the University of Notre Dame’s campus. I am in better shape for keeping up with him.

Many assisted with my visit to the Diocese of Syracuse Archives, Syracuse, New York.

Archivist Mickey Bruce provided information on the diocese’s early years, and Thomas

Costello, retired auxiliary bishop, arranged for my stay at rectory. I was

xi unable to visit the Archdiocese of St. Paul Archives in St. Paul, Minnesota, but Heather Lawton

and Allison Spies researched there and supplied critical correspondence documenting Bishop

Thomas Grace’s involvement with the prayer book project. Carole Prietto, associate archivist of

the Daughters of Charity Provincial Archives in Emmitsburg, , patiently awaited my

visit after I dodged a snow storm and auto accident to view an original St. Vincent’s Manual and

related correspondence, brought to my attention by Sister Betty Ann McNeil, DC, resident

scholar of De Paul University’s Office of Mission and Values, Chicago.

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati’s Richard Hamilton deserves special mention. While on a

ladder with flashlight in hand and talking with me by phone, he searched archives’ boxes temporarily consigned to storage. By doing so, he found Baltimore ’s

1884 letter to Cincinnati Archbishop William , documenting the first mention of a US national prayer book. At the New York County Court Division of Old Records in , archivists Joseph Van Nostrand and Bruce Abrams helped me navigate the maze of nineteenth- century company incorporations and equity cases. Pamela Anderson, archivist of the National

Archives and Records Administration in Kansas City, Missouri, and Douglas O’Connor, librarian of the New York State Library in Albany, New York, through email and phone

conversations, provided necessary documents. I was fortunate to accompany Helen on a few of

her business trips to , enabling me to research at the Congregation for the Evangelization of

Peoples and the Vatican Archives where I obtained a trove of information.

I am greatly indebted to the Rev. Msgr. John Alesandro, canonist and of the

diocese of Rockville Centre. While recovering from back surgery, he translated the Third

Plenary Council schema decrees related to the prayer book from to English. His

translations and subsequent conversations provided clarity to my understanding of the council’s

xii decrees. Edwin Dill, ST, translated one bishop’s proposal to the Third Plenary Council of

Baltimore related to the Divine Office and Nicolai Nilles’s commentary on the prayer book decrees, also from Latin to English.

I cannot forget the gratitude owed to my good friends: Law professor Michael

Scaperlanda guided me through numerous legal cases from the State of New York; Pierre

Malochee meticulously proofread the manuscript with a magnifier; and Bro. Howard Pillar, ST, diverted my attention with trips to the movies.

I am grateful to The Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at Notre

Dame for awarding me a research travel grant to visit the University of Notre Dame’s Archives.

I benefited from interviewing Paul Henderson and Mary Sperry, members of the United

States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) staff. They recounted the Catholic

Household’s history and provided keen insight into challenges related to its dissemination.

Matthew Kilmurry, director of Digital Marketing for the USCCB, described new social media promotions for the book.

In addition to Helen, family members patiently endured my doctoral work. Not many parents share the experience of being a student with their children. My son, David, a graduate student at the University of Texas, swapped stories and advice. My favorite daughter(s) Katie,

Sarah, and Laurie encouraged me—Katie introducing me to Msgr. John Alesandro, Sarah helping with research software and work portfolios, and Laurie’s words supporting my mid-life career change. Six grandchildren arrived in three years during my studies, adding joy to the adventure. Brigid, Caitlyn, Patrick, Emma, James, and Brian established a firm foundation in the simplicity of life. In some small way I hope this work contributes to the faith experience of our family.

xiii INTRODUCTION

On May 2, 1988, the national Catholic news agency announced: “For the first time since

1884, the US bishops are preparing a book of blessings and prayers for Catholics to use at home.”1 The news report compared the planned Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers with the prayer book commissioned by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884, the Manual of

Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity.2 Published in 1889, a century separates the Manual from Catholic Household, the only national prayer books for the laity authorized by US bishops.

While differing in origin, content, and aims, both books provided liturgical education.

In 1984, the ’s Congregation for Divine produced one of the last liturgical books resulting from the Second Vatican Council reforms—a revision of the 1614

Roman Ritual’s blessings, De Benedictionibus—and encouraged translations and local adaptation.3 In February 1984, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (NCCB) Blessings

Subcommittee prepared by surveying the nation’s diocesan offices for additions to the Book of

Blessings, the US English of De Benedictionibus. Survey results supported a separate book for the home. Gabe Huck, a layman and then director of Liturgy Training Publications in

Chicago, compiled Catholic Household. After a five-year process, the NCCB’s Administrative

Committee approved it and Book of Blessings in March 1988, promulgating both in the fall of

1989.4

1. "Bishops Prepare Book of Blessings for Use at Home," Catholic News Service, May 2, 1988. 2. Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1988); Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity: Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1889). Hereafter referred to as the Manual. 3. In 2001, the Holy See published the last : the Martyrologium Romanum or Roman . 4. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter: 1965-2000 (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004), 817-818, 883-884, 901-902, 922-923, 933-934, 961, 999- 1001, 1012, 1054, 1060, 1081, 1097, 1107, 1108-1110, 1124-1125, 1172-1173; NCCB Executive Director Rev. 1 2 Catholic Household derives from Book of Blessings. Considered , blessings

differ from the Church’s sacraments and provide prayers of praise and thanks to God, sanctifying persons, events, places, or objects. Catholic Household includes blessings for special occasions,

such as anniversaries, the birth of a child, travel, and seasonal celebrations. In addition to blessings, the book includes morning and evening and from the Liturgy of the

Hours and traditional Catholic prayers.

The Second Vatican Council’s ideal for the faithful’s full and active participation in the

Church’s liturgy influenced the liturgy committee overseeing Catholic Household. Christians’ liturgical participation, experienced in Christian antiquity, declined beginning in the Middle

Ages. In 1903, Pius X supported a return to tradition by calling for the faithful’s “active participation” in the liturgy. Throughout the twentieth century, the liturgical movement promoted the cause, receiving additional support from Pope Pius XII’s 1947 . The

Second Vatican Council “took an important doctrinal step forward,” by justifying comprehensive liturgical participation on the of all believers and the nature of the Church, a single body consisting of many members.5

Catholic Household aims to increase active participation in the Church’s liturgy by

promoting small community prayer. The NCCB Committee on the Liturgy considered the prayer

book necessary to further the Second Vatican Council’s reforms. After the “first steps”

promulgating the updated liturgical books, they determined the next phase required “enkindling a

love for and practice of prayer in the hearts of those who make up the Church.” The bishops’

John Gurrieri to Huck, December 12, 1984, LIT 97-6, Blessings Subcommittee: Correspondence -- General, AUSC; Minutes of the Administrative Committee of the NCCB, March 22-24, 1988, AUSC. 5. Aimé Georges Martimort, "The Assembly," in The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986), 98-99.

3 prayer book provided approved formulas to improve prayer at home. “Prayer happen in the

‘little churches’—the households, the families—if the Sunday assembly is to become a community of prayer.”6

The renewal of De Benedictionibus provided an opportunity for greater lay initiative in

liturgical prayer. Paying special attention to the Second Vatican Council’s provision that blessings “can be administered by suitably qualified lay people,”7 the Holy See supported lay

ministration over certain blessings, making special note of the role of parents:

Other laymen and laywomen, in virtue of the universal priesthood, a dignity they possess because of their baptism and confirmation, may celebrate certain blessings, as indicated in the respective orders of blessings, by use of the rites and formularies designated for a lay minister. Such laypersons exercise this ministry in virtue of their office (for example, parents on behalf of their children) or by reason of some special liturgical ministry or in fulfillment of a particular charge in the Church.8

Citing Pope John Paul II’s 1981 , the NCCB

Marriage and Family Life Office promoted the parents’ role in liturgical education, encouraging the book’s compilation.9 Stressing the laity’s universal priesthood and identifying the family as a

“domestic church,” the papal exhortation promoted liturgical prayer for the home: “An important

purpose of the prayer of the domestic church is to serve as the natural introduction for the

6. Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers, 2; The US bishops revised the 1988 prayerbook, producing a new forward and introduction, see Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers, Revised ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2007). 7. , 79, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, vol. 2, Trent to Vatican II (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 835. 8. "General Introduction," in Book of Blessings: Approved for Use in the of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See, ed. International Commission on English in the Liturgy (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1989), 26 (no. 18). 9. Hubbard to Gurrieri, May 15, 1984, LIT 97-1, Book of Blessings: Survey I, AUSC.

4 children to the liturgical prayer of the whole Church, both in the sense of preparing for it and of extending it into personal, family and social life.”10

The NCCB Committee on the Liturgy declared that the renewal’s goal of full, active, and

conscious participation “must wait until the people who assemble for the Sunday liturgy are

people who … know what it is to praise God, to attend to the scriptures, to intercede, and to give

thanks.”11 They proposed Catholics, not just families, further their experience of the Church’s

prayer in their community settings through Catholic Household:

The word household appears in the title of this book. It could have been family, but the intention here is to provide a book for every Catholic. … This book is to be an order of prayer, a way of reminding, and a way of learning what belongs to us. For all—certainly parents, but all who make up the Church—these prayers and rites are something we take with reverence for all the generations that have shaped them for us.12

Despite Catholic Household’s origin and content, the committee stressed it was “not a

liturgical book,” but rather augmented the church’s liturgy.13 As Familiaris Consortio notes, the

book prepares for and draws from the liturgy. After a brief introduction, Catholic Household provides limited instruction, thereby focusing on the prayer experience. Intended for communal use, it catechizes through involvement. Its creators encouraged greater lay participation in the church’s public rites by fostering their leadership in prayer, based on the church’s liturgy and tradition, in community and family environments.

Unlike Catholic Household, the US bishops’ 1889 Manual of Prayers was compiled in a

Catholic milieu marked by limited lay participation in the Church’s Latin liturgy. During the

Mass, most nineteenth-century Catholics engaged in non-liturgical devotions, accessible in their

10. Familiaris Consortio, 61, in The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations of John Paul II (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998), 204. 11. Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers, 7. 12. Ibid., 8. 13. Minutes of the Administrative Committee of the NCCB, March 22-24, 1988, AUSC, 12.

5 native tongue. Concerned with devotions’ quantity and quality, the Third Plenary Council

bishops desired that US Catholics obtain greater access to the Church’s prayers expressed in the

Roman Missal, , and Ritual.14 Relying on Roman liturgical books, Clarence Woodman, a

Paulist priest, compiled the work during the tumultuous period following the council, one marked by episcopal divisions over Catholic schools, separatist national , secret

societies, and social issues, to name a few.

The Manual of Prayers, promulgated three-quarters of a century before the Second

Vatican Council, foreshadowed the liturgical renewal movement. Intended for personal use, the book provided English translations for many liturgical rites, including morning and evening prayer, the , and all the sacraments except , to cultivate lay participation. To assist the laity, the book prefaced many rites with explanatory introductions and intermixed liturgical prayers with then-familiar English and US devotions. It is a hybrid of devotional, catechetical, and liturgical texts.

Once published, the book never achieved the circulation of the widely-known Baltimore

Catechism, titled A Catechism of Christian Doctrine.15 Jointly commissioned in the Third

Plenary Council’s chapter “On Christian Doctrine,” both books catechized. Understanding

prayer’s formative nature and the relationship between prayer and doctrine, the bishops made

available English translations of numerous rites and attempted to educate Catholic adults familiar

with non-liturgical prayer about the Church’s liturgy.

14. The shortened English titles are used for the Roman liturgical books: Missale Romanum: Ex Decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini Restitutum (), Breviarium Romanum: Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum (), and Rituale Romanum (). 15. A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1885). The catechism's popular designation, the Baltimore Catechism, is used in this document.

6 The Manual of Prayers has not been subject to a thorough examination. Scholars merely

cite the prayer book when discussing the larger topics of US conciliar and catechetical history,

lay spirituality, the liturgical movement, and Americanism in the late nineteenth-century United

States.

Charles Carmody and Mary Charles Bryce, in their extensive studies on the Third Plenary

Council’s Baltimore Catechism, do not treat the Manual of Prayers. Peter Guilday’s classic summary of the Baltimore councils, Annemarie Kasteel’s biography of Natchez Bishop Francis

Janssens, and the compilation of documents edited by Joseph Chinnici and Angelyn Dries include the Manual as a significant conciliar contribution in addition to the catechism. Given its episcopal approvals and despite its intended private use, Berard Marthaler considers the book the

“closest precedent that one finds for a Catholic version of The Book of Prayer.” He

juxtaposes the prayer book with the Baltimore Catechism, intended for children, considering the

Manual of Prayers a short adult catechism.16

Ann Taves does not include the national prayer book in her study of mid-nineteenth-

century Catholic devotional practices in the United States, but others consider the Manual an

example of devotion’s dominance over liturgical practice. James O’Toole views the book’s Mass

prayers “lost amid a host of other spiritual exercises.” Focusing on the book’s devotional nature,

he concludes it “furthered the impression that there was a kind of spiritual division of labor at

16. Charles J. Carmody, “The Catechesis in the United States 1784-1930: A Study of Its Theory, Development, and Materials” (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1975); Mary Charles Bryce, Pride of Place: The Role of the Bishops in the Development of Catechesis in the United States (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1984); Peter Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884 (New York: Macmillan, 1932), 239-240; Annemarie Kasteel, Francis Janssens, 1843-1897: A Dutch-American (Lafayette, LA: Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1992), 167; "Catechisms and Prayer Books, 1884," in Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community, ed. Joseph P. Chinnici and Angelyn Dries (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), 90-93; Berard L. Marthaler, "A for Roman Catholics," Worship 61, no. 3 (1987): 220-221.

7 Mass: the priest did what he did, and lay people did what they did, perhaps without much reference to each other.” Thomas Wangler proposes a “both-and” interpretation, citing the book as representative of nineteenth-century US Catholics’ “double emphasis” of devotions and liturgy. While mentioning the book’s liturgical use, James McCartin cites its numerous instructions and identifies the Manual as an all-encompassing—and meticulously laid out— spiritual program urging Catholics to “not only advance along the road to but also become good members of American society.”17

Other scholars highlight the liturgical—and pioneering—potential of the Manual within a devotional milieu. Godfrey Diekmann, William Busch, Paul Marx, and Joseph Chinnici identify the prayer book as a late nineteenth-century precursor to the liturgical movement, initiated in the

United States in the 1920s by the Benedictine , Virgil Michel.18 The movement, begun in mid-nineteenth-century Europe, proposed liturgy as the center of the Christian life and advocated that it involve all Christians especially the laity. The Manual advanced lay access by providing

English texts for many of the Church’s rites. By comparison, in his influential study of the US liturgical movement, Keith Pecklers overlooks the Manual as one of its forerunners, perhaps

17. Ann Taves, The Household of Faith: Roman in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986); James M. O'Toole, The Faithful: A History of Catholics in America (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 118-119; Thomas E. Wangler, "Catholic Religious Life in Boston in the Era of Cardinal O'Connell," in Catholic Boston: Studies in Religion and Community, 1870-1970, ed. Robert E. Sullivan and James M. O'Toole (Boston: n.p., 1985), 239-240; James P. McCartin, Prayers of the Faithful: The Shifting Spiritual Life of American Catholics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 21-22. 18. Godfrey Diekmann, "Lay Participation in the Liturgy of the Church," in A Symposium on the Life and Work of , ed. Episcopal Committee of the of Christian Doctrine (Washington, DC: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1946), 145-148; William Busch, "From Other Times: The Voice of a Plenary Council," 21 (1947); Paul B. Marx, Virgil Michel and the Liturgical Movement (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1957), 76-77; Joseph P. Chinnici, Living Stones: The History and Structure of Catholic Spiritual Life in the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 173.

8 because of its lesser-known status.19 Accounting for its lack of dissemination, Diekmann, writing

in 1946, suggests did not promote the Manual. Pioneered by a forward-looking

episcopacy, he considered “one of the tragedies” of US Catholic history the prayer book’s lack of promotion and acceptance compared to that of the Baltimore Catechism:

For no other country could (nor can, even at present) boast of such an prayer book, containing the essential elements of a Sunday and feast day missal, the text of the sacraments pertaining to the laity and the principal sacramentals from the ritual, as well as a generous selection of psalms, hymns and canticles from the breviary.20

Thomas Wangler interprets the Baltimore Catechism and Manual through the lens of

Americanism, which he viewed as an idea, promoted by some prominent US bishops, espousing

God’s intervention through the United States and the dawn of a new world—the American myth—and its ramifications for Catholicism’s future. While the practice of the faith waned in

Europe, its US growth signified the merits of church/state separation and, most significantly, placed the US Church in the vanguard of Catholicism’s reform.21

In 1899, Pope Leo XIII, in his apostolic letter Testem Benevolentiae, condemned views

associated with the idea such as dismissing spiritual guidance in favor of personal direction from

the Holy Spirit, preferring active virtues over passive ones, and, most importantly, modifying

church doctrine to gain converts. Addressing the latter, Wrangler claims Americanist bishops

19. Keith F. Pecklers, The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998); In a subsequent publication, Pecklers cites the Manual as an example of an approved translation of the Roman liturgical books. Keith F. Pecklers, Dynamic Equivalence: The Living Language of (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 30-31. 20. Diekmann, 147. 21. Thomas E. Wangler, "Americanist Beliefs and Papal Orthodoxy: 1884-1899," U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 3 (1993): 38-40.

9 held progressive views but never proposed changing church doctrine or liturgy as expressed in

their endorsement of the Third Plenary Council’s catechism and prayer book.22

Nonetheless, Wangler claims the Americanist bishops’ belief in the American myth held

“varying degrees of compatibility or incompatibility with the definition of [the world and

mankind] in the Christian and the .”23 He highlights their proposed church

reforms of a political and social nature inconsistent with Church doctrine such as the separation

of church and state and the acceptance of religious pluralism. While asserting the Americanists

protected the Church’s creed and liturgy from their reforms, he describes several of their views

which relate to making the Church’s liturgy more accessible, such as the church’s need to appeal

to the multitudes, the supremacy of English culture and law, and opposition to excesses of non-

liturgical devotions.24

The various scholarly views above indicate little consensus about the Manual of Prayers.

This dissertation makes the first attempt to examine the US bishops’ nineteenth-century prayer

book.

Chapter one surveys the catechetical nature of prayer books, starting with the thirteenth-

century or Horae, thereby situating the Manual within its literary genre. The

chapter narrates the quest for a national catechism and prayer book during the nineteenth-century

US councils, highlighting the importance of both books for the bishops. The chapter concludes with the Manual’s genesis at the Third Plenary Council and subsequent history of compilation.

22. Ibid., 40, 47-50; For the seminal work on Americanism, see Thomas McAvoy, The Great Crisis in American Catholic History, 1895-1900 (Chicago: H. Regnery, 1957); For the impact of Testem Benevolentiae on US , see Chinnici, 119-133. 23. Wangler, "Americanist Beliefs and Papal Orthodoxy: 1884-1899," 50. 24. Ibid., 37-51; See also Thomas E. Wangler, "The Birth of Americanism: 'Westward the Apocalyptic Candlestick'," The Harvard Theological Review 65, no. 3 (1972): 415-436.

10 Chapter two describes the makeup of the Manual of Prayers using a simplified structure in lieu of the book’s exhaustive Table of Contents. The chapter includes a source criticism of the book, identifying text incorporated from Roman liturgical and English/Irish devotional books, as well as unique US sources, thereby providing an overview of the nation’s late nineteenth-century devotional and liturgical culture. The chapter highlights the book’s explicit instructional or catechetical material.

Chapter three narrates the Manual’s post-publication history. While sharing traits with the Baltimore Catechism, the prayer book required aggressive promotion to influence lay prayer, including new approaches and sales to individual Catholic adults. Other difficulties soon followed its publication: the economic depression of the 1890s, turbulence in the book trade, and ideological divisions among US bishops. The chapter accounts for the Manual’s limited distribution yet prolonged history—a subsequent 1930 revision remained in print until the

Second Vatican Council reforms.

Chapter four evaluates the Manual’s role in catechesis. Situating the prayer book within the history of liturgical-catechetical church documents, the chapter compares the Manual’s teaching of the sacraments to the Baltimore Catechism and the analogous pastoral directives of the 1566 Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentii or Roman Catechism, produced as a result of the Council of Trent, which affected catechesis until the Second Vatican Council.25 The

Tridentine decrees directed priests to explain the sacraments to the laity at opportune times, which was interpreted to be either at their administration or in .

25. The Tridentine catechism’s popular designation, Roman Catechism, is used in this document.

11 Chapter five provides a synthesis and conclusion and develops an understanding of the

relationship between the Manual of Prayers and the Baltimore Catechism and the former’s failure compared to the success of the latter.

CHAPTER ONE

Context and Origins

This is the story of a book. But not just any book—a prayer book. More than a collection of prayers, this prayer book taught how to pray. Commissioned by a council of US Catholic bishops, the Manual of Prayers attempted to teach Catholics how to pray liturgically. Published at a time of limited lay participation in the Catholic liturgy, the book promoted greater access.

Yet the book failed to gain widespread acceptance, never achieving the popularity of the other book the bishops ordered—the Baltimore Catechism.

Prayer books and catechisms assist the church’s mission of handing on the faith, or catechizing. A complex system of integrating members into the Christian community defines catechesis. Simply put: “Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the church’s efforts to make disciples.”1

Liturgy performs a primary role in catechesis. At the time of the Manual of Prayers’

publication in 1889, the liturgical movement, then in its earliest stage, aimed to revive an

understanding of liturgy’s importance for Christian formation. Lambert Beauduin, Benedictine

monk and significant figure in the movement, stated in 1914: “Active participation in the

liturgical life of the Church is a capital factor in the supernatural life of the Christian.”2 More

than a set of ritual books, liturgy effectively conveys the faith. As a communal act and set of

gestures based upon authoritative works, liturgy provides “one of the most reliable expressions

1. Catechism of the (: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), 8 (art. 4). 2. Lambert Beauduin, Liturgy the Life of the Church, trans. Virgil Michel, 3rd ed. (Farnborough, UK: St. Michael's Press, 2002), 19. 12 13

of the apostolic tradition.”3 The ancient axiom Legem credendi statuit lex supplicandi (The law

of prayer establishes the law of believing) articulates liturgy’s capacity to teach the Christian

faith.4

Catechesis and Catechisms

Introduced in the fourteenth century, a catechism aims to instruct Christians without

providing the “totality” of catechesis. A sample of church literature reveals catechesis’s broader

mandate and the effectiveness—and limitations—of documents committed to those tasks.

Catechesis in early Christian communities revolved around liturgical participation, moral

formation, and daily prayer. The , the earliest known document treating Christian

formation, relates a mentor-based training program centered on Baptism, weekly Eucharist,

frequent public penance, and the Our Father’s daily recitation. However, the Didache included

little, if any, doctrinal teaching and trained gentile converts in Christian communal living. By the

third century, large groups of unbaptized Christians prompted creation of the catechumenate, a

pre-baptismal formation program. Concerned with moral instruction, homilies explained

liturgical rites and addressed doctrinal topics especially in the Creed.5

Augustine’s fifth-century On Faith, Hope, and Charity, anachronistically labeled a catechism, provided the basis for future catechetical systems. Responding to a request to

3. Irénée Henri Dalmais, "The Liturgy and the Deposit of Faith," in The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986), 277. 4. Ibid., 273-280. 5. Gerard S. Sloyan, "Religious Education: From Early to Medieval Times," in Shaping the Christian Message: Essays in Religious Education, ed. Gerard S. Sloyan (New York: Macmillan, 1958), 4-5, 5-12; Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 87-88.

14

summarize Christianity, Augustine produced an enchiridion, literally a small manual or

handbook, structuring catechesis around the three theological virtues: Faith, Hope, and Love.

The Creed encapsulates what Christians believe; the Our Father, what Christians hope; and the

Great Commandment, what Christians love: God and neighbor. Augustine categorized catechesis

into doctrine (faith), prayer (hope), and moral formation (charity). He devoted the bulk of his

enchiridion to faith, but Augustine explained prayer’s importance: “Faith believes, hope and

charity pray. But hope and charity cannot be without faith, and so faith prays as well.”6 The

hierarchy implies one can teach doctrine without teaching how to pray, but one cannot teach how

to pray without teaching doctrine. Augustine stressed charity’s primacy: “For when we ask

whether somebody is a good person, we are not asking what he believes or hopes for but what he

loves.”7

Eamon Duffy describes the late medieval “elaborate catechetical programme for the

laity.”8 The landmark Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 provided structural reforms, stressed

vernacular preaching, and obliged Catholics to receive once a year, thereby

increasing priests’ ministering the , the spread of penitential manuals, and

spurred the ministry of the newly-formed mendicant religious orders ( and

Dominicans) in popular preaching and . could now examine and instruct penitents with new catechetical methods. In England, the Lambeth Council of 1281 created a list

of six items, labeled “doctrinal points” by Rita Copeland, which every priest should teach in the

6. Augustine, The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith Hope and Charity, trans. Bruce Harbert (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 35 (ch. 7). 7. Ibid., 138 (ch. 117). 8. Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the : Traditional Religion in England, c.1400-c.1580, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2005), 53.

15

vernacular and every Catholic should know: The Apostle’s Creed, the Ten Commandments

coupled with the ’s two commandments, seven works of mercy, seven virtues, , and seven sacraments. This list or “catechetical programme,” known as the Lambeth

Constitutions, formed an oral catechism containing doctrine (Creed), moral living

(commandments, virtues, and vices), and liturgy (sacraments). While the Lambeth list did not explicitly include prayers, Duffy asserts the program assumed ’s Prayer and .

In 1357, York Archbishop John Thoresby ordered a book adopting the Lambeth Constitutions’

six-point structure and subsequently titled The Lay Folks’ Catechism—the first known book

labeled a catechism.9

Berard Marthaler, a Catholic religious educator, attributes the structure of sixteenth-

century catechisms to the late medieval practice centered on the Creed (doctrine), the Ten

Commandments (moral living), and the Lord’s Prayer (prayer). In to Protestant

Reformers’ criticisms of Catholic sacraments, catechisms inserted detailed expositions on the sacraments (liturgy) after the doctrinal section. In 1566, the Council of Trent’s Roman

Catechism, intended as a resource for parish priests, adopted this four-part structure. The sacraments’ pastoral directives, “the longest and most distinctive part of the Roman Catechism,” emphasized the importance of explaining the sacraments.10

In 1885, the small seventy-five page Baltimore Catechism, intended for children, consisted of thirty-seven chapters with a Tridentine structure: Creed, sacraments, prayer, and

9. Ibid., 53-54; Berard L. Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 9; Marjorie Curry Woods and Rita Copeland, "Classroom and Confession," in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 396-398. 10. Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 36-38, 39.

16

commandments. Despite its widespread use in the United States in the twentieth century, many

initially criticized its incomplete treatment of doctrine and pedagogical method. Important for

this study, the Baltimore Catechism treated prayer in a single chapter.11

The above survey conveys catechesis’ breadth and depth and the accessory role of

documents, especially catechisms. By comparison, the present-day General Directory for

Catechesis provides principles to guide religious educators and describes catechesis’ goal as

putting “people not only in touch, but also in communion and intimacy, with Christ.”12 To achieve this goal the Directory underscores four fundamental tasks from the church’s catechetical tradition: providing knowledge of the Christian faith, liturgical education, moral formation, and teaching to pray.13 The Directory provides a lens to appreciate prayer books’

important service to catechesis.

Catechesis and Prayer Books

Prayer books preceded catechisms, the genre most associated with catechesis. Lay prayer

books appeared in the thirteenth century, before the 1357 Lay Folks’ Catechism. Prayer books,

like catechisms, assist in catechesis and respond to particular needs.

While many overlook prayer books’ catechetical nature, one could argue they have an

advantage over catechisms because they include liturgical prayer formulas, which the church

sanctions. Catholic prayer books help believers experience prayer. Like the liturgy, the prayer

experience cannot be reduced to printed formulas but the latter play an essential role in

11. Bryce, 93-95. 12. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1998), 71 (art. 80). 13. Ibid., 74-76 (art. 85).

17

promoting knowledge of the faith. Furthermore, in addition to formulas, prayer books may

contain printed words or text addressing Christian doctrine, liturgy, moral formation, and how to pray.

All text in a prayer book catechizes, but liturgical prayer formulas hold a pride of place.

Marthaler shows how prayer books nurtured the faith of Christians in a way unattainable by catechisms. He attributes their success to the capacity to make present—in a lively and persistent way—prayer formulas of the faith. Their relation to the liturgy, “the original habitat of catechesis in the ancient church,”14 and frequent use made them effective. As Marthaler warns, catechisms

with a focus on selective instructional material related to formulas of faith enshrine a particular

theology.15

Prayer books containing liturgical prayer formulas provide an opportunity for liturgical

catechesis. A complex relationship exists between liturgy and catechesis. While not aiming to

teach, liturgy is acknowledged as the most important means the church possesses to teach.

Liturgy is described as “the model for all catechesis, since catechesis has for its purpose not

simply to pass on correct doctrine, but above all to initiate its recipients into a living faith.”16 A

form of catechesis—liturgical catechesis—gives preference to liturgy’s role in Christian

formation. Liturgical catechesis affirms liturgy as an effective source in implementing the four

tasks of catechesis—and as the culmination of the overall goal of communion and intimacy.

Given the topic of a prayer book, the author stresses the important distinctions separating liturgy

and prayer in the tasks of catechesis. Liturgy serves as the church’s primordial prayer, but not all

14. Marthaler, "A Book of Common Prayer for Roman Catholics," 217. 15. Ibid., 209. 16. Dalmais, 276.

18

prayer is defined as liturgical. Neither should liturgical catechesis be limited to liturgical

education; rather, liturgical catechesis utilizes liturgy as a reference point when implementing all

the tasks of catechesis.

Prayer Book Genres

The following brief historical survey of Catholic prayer book genres highlights their role in teaching doctrine, liturgical education, moral formation, and teaching to pray by adapting to then-current needs and provides a context for the Manual of Prayers.

Christian laity have prayed the church’s daily prayers since ancient times, providing the genesis for the earliest lay prayer books. Christian prayers’ structure and content have varied considerably through the ages. After 313 CE, when the Emperor Constantine permitted

Christians to practice their faith, two general forms of daily prayer emerged. The first form prevailed because of its accessibility. Available in the midst of an urban Christian populace and practiced during morning and evening hours, the prayer emphasized symbols and ceremony and

included a small and unvarying number of psalms, aiding easy memorization. Located in the

bishop’s church, like all liturgical celebrations, and labeled prayer, a college of

presbyters or canons presided at the services.17

Concurrently a second monastic form of prayer emerged. Since organized their

common life to include gathering several times each day for prayers, they prayed all 150 psalms

with additional prayer formulas and scriptural lessons. Monasticism, a movement providing a

secluded culture of asceticism, prayer, and spirituality, influenced forms of worship in the

17. Robert F. Taft, The in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today, 2nd ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), ch. 2, 3, and 8.

19

Christian West. By the fifth century, monastic practices provided models for church reform. As a

result, cathedral prayer acquired monastic features. Eventually, churches in outlying areas served

as extensions of the cathedral. By the mid-twelfth century, presbyters ministered full time in the

latter communities. Without a chapter of canons, they could not maintain cathedral prayer,

especially in its enlarged monastic form. Coinciding with the loss of cathedral prayer, the prayer

manuscript for lay usage emerged.18

Horae

Usage of the earliest extant prayer manuscripts for the laity advanced in the thirteenth

century, providing an experience of monastic prayer. Unlike earlier cathedral forms developing

parallel to monastic ones, the manuscripts evolved from monks’ private devotions. Augmenting

the Divine Office, the daily liturgical prayers for the , the manuscripts earned the

designation of Books of Hours or horae. Without central oversight, no two versions of the horae repeated the same text. Yet their contents had the same core, the office of the Blessed .19

Revealing their heritage in the medieval , the horae supplemented the Marian office with

the seven , of the , the fifteen Psalms, and the Office of

the Dead. Unlike the Divine Office’s number and variability of prayers, the horae included fewer

and the forms did not fluctuate. This simplicity, a semblance of ancient cathedral prayer, appealed to the laity who desired to emulate monastic prayer. Propagating a private, interior

18. Ibid., ch. 18. 19. The official Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary of 1571, discussed later, evolved from this office.

20

spirituality, the new assisted the growth of manuscripts. However, their

expense limited adoption to the nobility, especially women.20

Early horae, through images and Latin text, maintained the medieval church’s visual and

aural environment but in a new medium—the prayer manuscript. Containing no instructional text

and written completely in Latin, they provided liturgical education. Paul Saenger describes how

manuscripts advanced the oral tradition of prayer and taught a “phonetic ” of liturgical

Latin through the repeated usage of familiar responses. Mary Erler attributes the horae’s

longevity to the laity’s oral familiarity with Latin phrases. Duffy highlights how manuscripts

improved lay understanding of the liturgy because they “formed an important bridge between lay

piety and the liturgical observance of the church.”21

The early horae’s elaborate images conveyed doctrine as much as the Latin text. Images effectively taught the Christian faith, similar to churches’ stained glass and statuary. Images facilitated understanding of the text or could stand alone as objects of reflection. They taught how to pray by providing models and helped the “devotee visualize the process of prayer.”22

While prayer books facilitated personal devotion, Duffy revises the interpretation that they

contributed to an individualistic piety. He points to the communal nature of reciting the same

20. Edmund Bishop, "On the Origin of the Prymer," in Liturgica Historica (Oxford: Clarendon, 1918); See also: Roger S. Wieck, "Introduction," in Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life, ed. Roger S. Wieck (New York: George Braziller, 1988); Duffy, 210. 21. Paul Saenger, "Books of Hours and the Habits of the Later ," in The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe, ed. Roger Chartier, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 142; Mary C. Erler, "Devotional Literature," in 1400-1557, ed. Lotte Hellinga and J. B.Trapp, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, ed. John Barnard, D.J. McKitterick and I.R. Willison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 498; Duffy, 217-223, 231. 22. Virginia Reinburg, "Prayer and the Book of Hours," in Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours, ed. Roger S. Wieck (New York: George Braziller, 1988), 44.

21

prayers and images of church settings which connected the user's private environment to the

larger community.23

Duffy shows how manuscript shops provided customization as a pedagogical method to

make prayer relevant and created ownership for one’s religious formation. The horae included local liturgical calendars and saints. Scribes integrated images and Latin wording reflecting their owner’s gender. Ultimate customization included images of the book’s owner, inserting the latter’s own name in prayer formulas or portraying the user in prayer as one who "has climbed inside it, and has become part of the scene which her prayer evokes."24 Heirs continued the

customization. New owners marked books with their own name or prayer needs. Hence the

horae were working prayer documents. Duffy labels this "personal devotional adaptation."25 As

demand increased, manuscript producers introduced blank spaces for names or completely blank

sections for personal prayers or pilgrimage cards.26

In addition to conserving prayer’s oral mode, the horae introduced a new way of praying.

Saenger stresses reading advanced by phonetic literacy intertwined with comprehension literacy, the ability to read silently and understand the text. He describes how silent reading provided the basis for a “new aesthetic ideal”—silent prayer. The horae assisted the transition from oral prayer to silent prayer through vernacular and, eventually, additional vernacular prayer

formulas.27

23. Eamon Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2006), 53-64. 24. Ibid., 37-38. 25. Ibid., 39. 26. Ibid., 23-52. 27. Saenger, 141-157.

22

With advances in manuscript assembly and emergence of a literate middle class, the

horae’s usage expanded. Requiring more prayer material, some in the vernacular, the horae grew

beyond the core set of offices and psalms.28

Duffy draws attention to the Lambeth Constitutions’ influence, stressing the Creed and the virtues and vices, which assisted in moral formation. Starting in the fourteenth century, the

framework appeared in church architecture, art and literature, and the horae were not excluded.

He claims devotional additions to the horae based upon the and the sorrows of

Mary relate to this catechetical program. Especially in England, the prayer books had “more

elaborate catechetical material of precisely this sort, very often in rhyme for easier

memorizing.”29

The English Primer

In the early sixteenth century, the English version of the horae, the primer (rhymes with

dimmer) grew unchecked with lack of ecclesial oversight. Additions, written in English, included

explanations describing and their supernatural benefits, but also significant

catechetical material: variants of the Lambeth Constitutions, moral guides, explanatory notes,

and summaries of the faith. Charles Butterworth explains how sixteenth-century primers enabled

access to the psalms and other scripture in the vernacular “when the English was forbidden

28. Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers, 20, 25. 29. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400-c.1580, 265.

23

to circulate.”30 The primer evolved into a more complete catechetical system by the mid- sixteenth century.31

During the English , Protestant and Catholic primers appeared. Reformed

primers excluded obvious Catholic features such as saints, , Latin, indulgences,

and supernatural promises. Eventually their usage waned. Catholic primers adopted aspects of

the Reformed primers and retained catechetical instructions to preserve Catholic identity and

distinguish Catholic from Protestant beliefs.32 The catechism, however, became the dominant

catechetical book in the Catholic tradition in the context of Protestant and Catholic theological

differences. The advanced prayer book usage with its single, liturgical book,

The Book of Common Prayer, for clergy and laity. Geoffrey Cumming details the primer’s

contribution to this landmark , which subordinated the catechism to one of its chapters.33

The horae—and the English primer in particular—had grown beyond the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Following the Council of Trent, the Holy See created an official

Officium Beatae Mariae Virginis in 1571. This Latin office contained prayer formulas, devotions, and hymns.34 Its brief introduction to the Christian faith, Institutio Christiana

(Christian Instruction), reveals a strong similarity to the Lambeth Constitutions.35 Compared to

30. Charles C. Butterworth, The English Primers, 1529-1545: Their Publication and Connection with the English Bible and the Reformation in England (: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953), 139. 31. Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers, 139-146; See also: Helen Constance White, The Tudor Books of Private Devotion (Madison, WI: University of Press, 1951), 61-66. 32. Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers, 147-148, 167; White, 72-74. 33. Geoffrey Cuming, The Godly Order: Texts and Studies Relating to the Book of Common Prayer (London: Alcuin Club/SPCK, 1983), 26-30. 34. Edgar Hoskins, Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis; or, Sarum and York Primers with Kindred Books and Primers of the Reformed Roman Use (London: Longmans, Green, 1901), 349ff. 35. Hoskins itemizes the Institutio Christiana from the 1599 English edition: "An introduction to the Christian Faith. Symbolum Apostolurm . . . The Apostles Creed. Oratio dominicalis. Our Lord's Prayer. Salutatio angelica. The angelical salutation. Decem Dei praecepta quae in decalogo continentur. The ten precepts of God which are contained in the decalogue. The seven sacraments of the Catholick church. The theological virtues. The cardinal

24

the Council of Trent’s 1566 catechism intended for parish priests, this introduction served as a

catechism for the laity. The first English translation of Officium Beatae Mariae Virginis appeared

in 1599 with primer in the title. Post-Tridentine primers became synonymous with English

translations of the most recent official version of Officium Beatae Mariae Virginis. Flexibility marked the pre-Tridentine primer. The post-Tridentine primer evolved to an anthology of approved Latin prayers, contributing to its decrease in popular demand. J.M. Blom catalogs forty-two English post-Tridentine primers for the period 1599-1800—compared to eighty-three editions published for the competing genre, the English manual.36

The English Manual

In England, a new genre appeared in the late sixteenth century to become the most

popular one into the nineteenth century. Like the pre-Tridentine primer, the manual—most titled

“A Manual of Prayers”—adjusted to ever-changing devotional needs. The quotidian principle, an

“arrangement of prayers and devotions according to the days of the ,”37 provided the manual’s core framework. Publishers compiled prayer and catechetical material from respected

Catholic authors, including the pre- and post-Tridentine primers, and interspersed catechetical material, adding to the genre’s complexity. Their adaptability appealed to a growing reading public as opposed to the post-Tridentine primer. Many manuals contained lengthier doctrinal explanations or summaries of the Christian faith. They especially provided

virtues. The gifts of the Holy Ghost. The fruits of the Holy Ghost. The precepts of charity. The . The spiritual works of mercy. The works of mercy. The Beatitudes. The five bodily senses. The seven capital sins which are commonly called deadly. The four last things to be remembered." Ibid., 358. 36. J. M. Blom, The Post-Tridentine English Primer (London: Catholic Record Society, 1982), 168-175 (post- Tridentine primers), 175-188 (manuals). 37. Ibid., 116-117.

25 education. In addition to instruction for Penance, the manuals cultivated a new Eucharistic devotion. They included preparatory guides and instructions for “hearing” Mass—to assist the lay person during the celebration of the . The manual genre consists of a prayer book augmented with a substantial amount of instruction.38

The English Garden

In the mid-eighteenth century, The Garden of the Soul eclipsed the manual as the most widely-used English prayer book. Bishop Richard Challoner, vicar apostolic of the London district, compiled the Garden in 1740. His work promoted a meditative and rational spirituality.

Whereas the post-Tridentine primer anthologized prayer formulas and the manual mixed devotion and instruction, the Garden primarily instructed. It appealed to English Catholics, a minority attracted to an interior and guarded Catholicism in an eighteenth-century social milieu dominated by anti-Catholic penal laws, rationalism, and deism.39

The Garden balanced catechesis’ four fundamental tasks and conveyed Challoner’s tight integration of instruction, piety, and Christian living. An abridgment of Christian doctrine, the

Garden also taught how to meditate and focused on moral formation. Echoing Augustine’s On

Faith, Hope, and Charity, J.D. Crichton describes the Garden’s catechesis of doctrine, prayer, and moral living: “Devotion is based on faith, and faith must be nourished. But faith must issue into prayer, into Christian living and ultimately into union with God. This, I believe, is the main thrust of this apparently unpretentious book.”40 Challoner’s approach to liturgical education

38. Ibid., 112-121, 156. Blom presents a 1786 manual's table of contents, listing instructions at the book's start and throughout before Mass, Confession, and Communion. 39. Ibid., 154-159. 40. J.D. Crichton, "Richard Challoner: Catechist and Spiritual Writer," Clergy Review 66 (1981): 274.

26

honored the Tridentine Roman liturgical books’ Latin without providing the prohibited English

translations. He paraphrased parts of the Mass in the devotions and provided more exact

translations in explanatory guides. Crichton draws attention to the substantial biblical material in

the Garden. A culmination of Challoner’s writings, the Garden strengthened the faith—in a

single practical book—of a growing English Catholic population.41

The Garden also evangelized. John Bossy maintains the manual and Garden assumed

prior knowledge of the Catholic faith and presence of a . He positions the

Garden as a sequel to the manual. However, the prevailing view distinguishes the Garden from the manual because of the former’s audience; newly literate Catholics awakened to a Catholic culture. Its prayers’ brevity and simple explanations reflect believers’ rudimentary needs,

Challoner’s devotion to London’s poor, eighteenth-century English Catholics’ low economic status, and an influx of Irish immigrants. The Garden did not “presuppose a Catholic pattern of

daily life” but attempted to impart it.42

While not a genre, publishers’ updates created a distinction between Challoner’s Garden

editions and subsequent versions. Ironically, while the primer and the manual grew in

catechetical additions, the Garden, according to English historian Edwin Burton, was “edited out of all recognition,”43 especially during the nineteenth-century Catholic Revival. Devotions came

to overshadow Challoner’s instructional material. The Garden evolved into a devotional prayer

41. Edwin Hubert Burton, The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) (London: Longmans, Green, 1909), 2:131-134; Crichton, 274. 42. John Bossy, The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 364, 383; Blom, 157-158. 43. Burton, 127.

27 book, though originally a catechism with a systematic guide on how to meditate throughout the day in different life circumstances and with reception of the sacraments.44

English Nineteenth-Century Devotional Prayer Books

The early- to mid-nineteenth century brought a sea-change in Catholic devotional practice. The Catholic Revival spans over a century, beginning with the Congress of Vienna

(1814-1815) and restoration of the . In the US Manual of Prayers’ timeframe, the era warrants more description. International in scope, a rise in affective extra-liturgical practices marked the revival. This bold Catholicism prided itself on its Catholic heritage—especially medieval Christianity. Similar to Tridentine spirituality, directing Catholics to a routine of practice in all-Catholic societies, the revival invigorated nominal Catholics in a milieu of growing religious indifference. The Catholic Revival favored certain types of devotions whose numbers increased significantly. Devotions highlighted aspects of Catholicism repugnant to non-

Catholics: saints, the Virgin Mary, miracles, Penance, and especially the Blessed Sacrament.45

Prayer books fostered the revival. The print revolution enabled mass production of literature and an expanding rail network fostered its distribution. Developing national education systems and availability of books and newspapers at ever lower prices accompanied increased literacy throughout the century.46 Because publishers desired to serve an expanding market, while reducing development costs, they bundled a variety of devotions in one book, creating devotional tomes. Devotions easily spread through this new medium environment.

44. Ibid., 127-136; See also, Bossy, 364, 383. 45. Mary Heimann, "Catholic Revivalism in Worship and Devotion," in World Christianities, c1815 - c1914, ed. Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 70-71. 46. Scott E. Casper, The Industrial Book, 1840-1880, vol. 3 of A History of the Book in America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 30-34, 118-120.

28

The Holy See influenced the type of devotions included in nineteenth-century revival

prayer books, but scholars disagree on the extent. Some argue the revival resulted from the Holy

See’s concerted, institutional effort.47 The papacy’s 1861 loss of the Papal States and the 1870

loss of Rome in the political movement to create the Kingdom of Italy corresponded with the of the new state to restrict and/or regulate Church life. While the British Parliament

removed the penal law restrictions on Catholics in Great Britain and in 1829, and the

Holy See re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales in 1852, anti-Catholicism

remained prevalent. The activist papacy of Pius IX broadened papal influence. In particular, Ann

Taves emphasizes Pope Pius IX’s avid promotion of indulgences for reciting non-liturgical

prayers as a source for increased devotions. The Holy See produced a collection of approved prayers and works of piety, the Raccolta, which served as a reference for publishers and heavily

influenced the revival.48

Other scholars focus on nineteenth-century cultural identity changes. The formation of

new national governments and emigration altered political identities, and a resurgence of anti-

Catholicism merited responses. These changes created a need for a new identity, which

burgeoning Catholic devotional practices helped create. A central Catholic authority supported—

versus initiated—the new devotional practices.49 With this perspective, the revival promoted

local devotional customs, some officially approved by the Holy See. Mary Heimann and Gerald

Parsons, in studies of nineteenth-century Catholic devotions in England, point to the influence of

47. J. Derek Holmes, The Triumph of the Holy See: A Short in the Nineteenth Century (London: Burns & Oates, 1978); Bill McSweeney, "Catholic Piety in the Nineteenth Century," Social Compass 34, no. 2-3 (1987). 48. Taves, 27-28, 114-118. 49. Heimann, 72-83.

29

the Garden-of-the-Soul English Catholics. Many scholars overlook the English heritage of some

devotions because their prayers correspond with the Catholic Revival. Heimann analyzed the

extra-liturgical services Catholic parishes in England and Wales advertised from 1850 to 1914.

Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament headed the list of devotional services most often offered,

and public recitation of the followed. She contests the claim that the Catholic Revival

reawakened observance of the public rosary. English Catholics regularly prayed the rosary; the

Garden included the public service.50 Herbert Thurston, the English Jesuit historian, identifies

the first of the simple English service to early editions of The Garden of the

Soul.51 Parsons reported older devotions enduring alongside the new: English “Catholic

devotional life, both nationally and locally, was much more 'continental' and 'Roman' in 1900

than it was in 1829. ’More Roman than Rome' may be an exaggeration: More Roman than

hitherto is not."52

Post-1850 English Garden prayer books exemplify the intermingling of local devotions with new imports. Heimann’s two-fold analysis of these books, “edited out of all recognition” during the Catholic Revival, upholds the Garden heritage while shedding light on its altered

purpose. She maintains later editions preserved Garden spirituality—albeit amid an increase of

new devotional material—and the changes classified as “one of degree rather than of kind.”

Later compilers, responding to current needs and attempting to preserve heritage, emphasized

50. Mary Heimann, Catholic Devotion in Victorian England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 47-69; Gerald Parsons, "Victorian Roman Catholicism: Emancipation, Expansion and Achievement," in Religion in Victorian Britain, ed. Gerald Parsons (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), 154-157. 51. Herbert Thurston, "Our English Benediction Service," The Month 106, no. 496 (1905). 52. Parsons, 177.

30 devotional elements. The Garden evolved from an instructional guide or “treatise on the spiritual life” to a collection of devotions—some with an English pedigree.53

The newly restored English hierarchy singled out the Garden to retain English custom.

Heimann describes the lengthy process the bishops undertook, resulting in The Garden of the

Soul’s selection as the basis for a national prayer book.54 The official Manual of Prayers for

Congregational Use, authorized by the bishops in 1871 and published in 1886, preserved English custom amidst the Holy See’s authorized prayers, most from the Raccolta. Its states:

Many of the prayers here reprinted were in use for generations during the times of persecution, and were the consolation of our ancestors. The traditional form of words, to which the faithful have been accustomed, in many instances for centuries, has therefore, as far as possible, been carefully retained. To these prayers have been added a number of the more modern popular devotions. Those especially have been selected, which are either in general use, or have been more richly indulgenced by the Holy See.55

The volume and content of Catholic Revival prayer books prompted English bishops to produce an authorized national one. Their reform addressed the quality of some of the revival’s devotional material. Viewed positively, the market’s size and devotional diversity presented a teaching opportunity. The bishops, as primary teachers of the faith, stressed the catechetical nature of devotions. Echoing Augustine, they intended not to suppress devotions but to encourage “regular and frequent use of them, especially on account of the doctrinal and moral truths with which they continually inform the mind, while at the same time they nourish and strengthen the soul.”56 While prayer books promoted local customs they also included devotions

53. Heimann, Catholic Devotion in Victorian England, 78-89 (quotations from 84 and 86). 54. Ibid., 72-75. 55. Manual of Prayers for Congregational Use: Version Prescribed by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of England (Leamington: Art and Book Company, 1886), v. 56. Ibid., vi.

31

from other cultures, exposing Catholics to different expressions of doctrine and prayer. They

taught the morality of respect for other cultures and learning from other perspectives—values core to the church’s work.

Nineteenth-Century Irish Devotional Prayer Books

Before the Catholic Revival in Ireland, English prayer books influenced Irish ones. Irish

Catholics, like their English counterparts, lived under penal laws in the eighteenth century. But in Ireland, Catholics formed the majority and possessed an Irish language tradition. Patrick

Corish highlights the “marked regionalism” of Ireland but differentiates between a dwindling native, rural, and oral Gaelic Irish Catholicism and a nascent, urban, and literate English- speaking Irish Catholicism. He supports the distinction claiming “the Irish scribal tradition appears to have put up a positive opposition to the printing press,”57 preventing broader

dissemination of ancient Irish prayers, many revealing, not superstitions, but a “terse theological richness.” Church published catechisms in Irish, but most prayer books were printed in

English headed by Challoner’s works, creating a somber spirituality akin to their English coreligionists. From early- to mid-nineteenth century, and book publishing spread the “English-speaking spirituality” to rural areas.58

Emmet Larkin ranks the gradual loss of Irish culture above the mid-century Great Famine

as a more significant cause for advancing the Catholic Revival in Ireland. Archbishop

Paul Cullen (created cardinal in 1866), reshaped English devotions, ensuring “that what was new

in discipline and devotion in the wider world would be firmly stamped on the Irish Catholic

57. Patrick J. Corish, The Irish Catholic Experience: A Historical Survey (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1985), 131. 58. Ibid., 130-132, 188-190.

32

mind.”59 Ireland’s post-1850 devotional revolution provided a new identity for Catholics as

Anglicization displaced the traditional Irish one. Larkin distinguishes between the lapsed

Catholic emigrant before the Famine and the practicing post-Famine Catholic emigrant. The

former popularized a repugnant Irish reputation while the latter carried the Catholic Revival to

their new surroundings, spreading Irish Catholicism in the British Empire and the United

States.60

Donal Kerr selects the English Garden of the Soul, the Irish Ursuline Manual, and Key of

Heaven as particularly important in Ireland and stressed their use for moral and doctrinal instruction.61 These books, produced before the Famine, continued to influence Catholic life

during the subsequent revival.

The Ursuline Manual contains significant catechetical material. First published in the

early nineteenth century for girls attending the Ursuline convent school in Cork, Ireland, it

includes “An Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine,” how to meditate, and “Reasons for

Adhering to the Roman Catholic Religion.” Instructions introduced many devotions and assisted

those preparing to receive the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Confirmation. Its preface endorses the value of religious education, so that the book aims to provide “a summary of the advice and instructions [the students] had been accustomed to receive, and as a kind of mirror, in

which they may at any time discern how far they have retained or lost the virtuous impressions

59. Ibid., 194, see also 212. 60. Emmet Larkin, "The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850-75," The American Historical Review 77, no. 3 (1972): 648-652; See also, Corish, 214-215. 61. Donal Kerr, "The Early Nineteenth Century: Patterns of Change," in Irish Spirituality, ed. Michael Maher (Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1981), 138-140.

33

of their early youth.”62 Unlike a catechism with more complete instruction on Christian doctrine,

the Ursuline Manual aimed to maintain the religious educational practices first taught in a

Catholic school through acts of devotion.

The Key of Heaven, of the manual genre, resembles a devotional prayer book .

Sadlier’s 1863 and 1873 editions retain the manual’s quotidian framework and include prayers

related to family life. With less catechetical material, the books still include instructional

methods for Penance and Eucharist, emphasizing the importance of preparation for these

sacraments.

Nineteenth-Century US Devotional Prayer Books

English Catholics in the eighteenth-century American colonies differed little from their

ancestors. As in England, Challoner’s writings helped form a quiet, interior, and meditative

spirituality since British penal laws proscribed Catholics’ public life and forbade them to open any houses of worship. After independence, religious freedom in the United States stimulated an irenic disposition. Catholics, located mostly in Maryland and Philadelphia, kept to themselves and their households maintained religious culture. In the absence of priests, prayer books enabled the laity to manage their religious formation and provided a supplement and, under some circumstances, a substitute for the sacramental life. Prayer books assisted in unifying the

Catholic population in the United States.63

62. The Ursuline Manual: Or A Collection of Prayers, Spiritual Exercises, &c. Interspersed with the Various Instructions Necessary for Forming Youth to the Practice of Solid Piety, Third Revised and Enlarged ed. (London: Keating & Brown, 1830), xxviii. 63. Chinnici, 1-34; O'Toole, 27-38.

34

The spread of the nineteenth-century Catholic Revival in the United States differed from

that of continental Europe. Catholic Europe possessed an ingrained Catholic heritage. The United

States, with its complex religious pluralism, provided an opportunity for new religious expressions. Furthermore, US Catholics, observers of but distanced from the European political situation, struggled “to reconcile their ecclesiastical loyalties with political republicanism.”64 An opportunity for a new relationship between Catholics and a nation-state lacking an official, state religion presented itself.65

US publishers reprinted and updated many English and Irish prayer books for the nation’s

growing immigrant population, as well as continental varieties. Catholic men’s religious orders

sponsored devotions related to their charism and promoted through parish missions they

conducted. Taves identifies many as European continental devotions previously unknown in

England and Ireland. True to the metaphor, nineteenth-century US Catholics experienced a

“melting pot” of such devotions during the Catholic Revival.66 Most of the prayer books have a

heritage in the English manual, an admixture of devotion and instruction, though without its

quotidian framework. In 1847, the Baltimore publisher John Murphy identified the Ursuline

Manual and the Garden of the Soul as the “principal books at present” when considering

publication of the US-based prayer book, St. Vincent’s Manual.67 Taves identifies the nine most

popular prayer books based upon editions printed for the period 1840-1880.68 The top three

sellers, the Ursuline Manual, the Mission-Book, and the Key of Heaven, reflect the immigrant

64. Patricia Byrne, "American Ultramontanism," Theological Studies 56, no. 2 (1995): 305. 65. Ibid., 304-306. 66. Taves, 10-19, 27-28. 67. John Muphy to Rev. Francis Lhomme, April 3, 1847, Correspondence of Rev. Louis Regis Deluol, Record Group 7-1-4, APSL. 68. Taves, 24, 144.

35

nature of nineteenth-century US Catholicism. The Ursuline Manual and Key of Heaven,

described above, have an Irish heritage, and the Mission-Book derived from its European

continental counterpart.69

While Catholic Revival prayer books bulged with devotions, they continued to provide

guidance. During the mid-nineteenth century, the stated purpose and content of the most widely

published US prayer books belies their devotional role.

Just as the Ursuline Manual advanced religious practices taught in school, the Mission-

Book sustained the parish mission experience, which the conducted. The book’s

editor explained as its purpose to provide “plain instruction in the principal duties of religion,

and the preservation of the fruits of the Mission.”70 Jay Dolan, a US church historian, labels the

prayer book a “mission catechism.”71 For its more adult audience, the Mission-Book helped

Catholics prepare for Matrimony in addition to the sacraments of Eucharist and Penance. In addition to teaching the sacraments, the Mission-Book contains sections on how to pray and meditate and teaches doctrine through its “Little Catechism” and an “Appendix to Plain

Instructions.” Likewise, instructions introduce some devotions. The book attempts moral formation by expounding responsibilities for various stations in life. Reflecting the nineteenth- century Catholic parish mission movement, the book included a preparatory guide to

Confirmation for adult converts.

69. Jay P. Dolan, Catholic Revivalism: The American Experience, 1830-1900 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978), 39. 70. The Mission-Book of the Congregation of the Most Holy , New ed. (Baltimore: Kelly, Piet, 1862), 3. 71. Dolan, 39.

36

Surveying prayer books reveals the ongoing relationship between prayer books and

catechesis. From their inception and varied emphases, they responded to their times and

communicated church teaching, provided liturgical education, played a key role in moral

formation, and taught Christian believers how to pray.

Prayer Book Reform in the United States

The surge of prayer books during the Catholic Revival in the United States brought calls

for reform. Joseph Chinnici acknowledges the influence of devotional prayers, and how they

"shaped and reflected the spiritual viewpoint of many of the people."72 He points out the need for organization at the revival’s onset because the Church lacked institutional oversight during the

colonial period. However, he aligns the early- to mid-nineteenth-century prayer books with the

views of church authority.73 Bishops approved many prayer books during the revival as long as

they did not contradict church doctrine. Nevertheless, their number and variety published for a

fast-growing immigrant church warranted more effective ecclesial direction.

To address issues of national importance, the US bishops recovered the ancient tradition

of holding councils. The Council of Trent decreed that bishops of an

convene in a provincial council every three years. Initially, bishops gathered; however, the

practice waned after they successfully implemented Trent’s reforms and/or as Catholic nation-

states exerted more control over the national Church. In the nineteenth-century United States,

where the state did not establish and support an official church, the bishops resumed the tradition

72. Joseph P. Chinnici, "Organization of the Spiritual Life: American Catholic Devotional Works, 1791-1866," Theological Studies 40, no. 2 (1979): 236. 73. Ibid., 229, 234, 252.

37

to establish some uniformity on pastoral issues and church governance across dioceses.74 They strengthened the bishops’ authority especially in regards to the role of lay trustees in parish life and resisted lay claims to appoint pastors. Councils provided an opportunity to address the flourishing business of catechisms and prayer books. US historians of catechesis have directed their research to a national catechism. However, the bishops’ conciliar decrees accorded greater attention to prayer books than to catechisms.

The first related to catechisms or prayer books appeared in November 1810 when five US bishops met after the creation of the sees of New York, Boston, Philadelphia and

Bardstown, partitioned from the original US Diocese of Baltimore, which was raised to archiepiscopal rank. The decree prescribed the Douay-Rheims Bible, the approved English translation, for scriptural passages used in manualibus precum (manuals of prayer), making no mention of catechisms.75

The First Provincial Council of 1829

The archbishop of Baltimore, metropolitan of the United States’ sole province comprising

the Archdiocese of Baltimore and ten suffragan dioceses, presided over the first provincial

council of US bishops.76 When their First Provincial Council of Baltimore convened in 1829, the

United States’ growth and its immigrant Catholic population, along with the book trade’s

74. The Catholic Church’s lacked a universal code of law until 1917. 75. Guilday, 74; Joseph P. Chinnici and Angelyn Dries, eds., Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), 17; Concilia Provincialia Baltimori habita ab Anno 1829 usque ad Annum 1849, Altera ed. (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1851), 26. 76. Between 1810 and 1829, the Holy See created the Charleston, Cincinnati, Mobile, Richmond, and St. Louis dioceses. With the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Diocese of New Orleans was acquired though lacked a bishop until 1815. Guilday, 32-34.

38 expansion, meant a surge of Catholic books. The bishops singled out catechisms and prayer books for attention in their proposed decrees:

Because many difficulties have already arisen and more may be expected to arise in the future on account of the fact that in several dioceses of this Province different catechisms and prayer-books, edited without authority, are in use, and since uniformity in such matters is greatly to be desired, let the Bishops take care that only those catechetical books be used, which have been edited with their approval and all others rejected. In addition, let them warn the faithful to refrain from using prayer books, printed without authorization from the , which are circulated by private individuals.77

The bishops urged the publication of books “edited with their approval.” They did not intend to create their own catechism or prayer book. In his study of the council’s decrees,

Thomas Casey quotes Rev. John Damphoux, the council’s secretary, who attributed the bishops’ stance on Catholic books to freedom of the press in the United States: “Bishops could only protect their people from such dangerous books using warnings and exhortations.”78 The

Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith or Propaganda, the Holy See’s

(department) overseeing the US church, inserted a clause requiring the bishops to respond proactively. In a desire to promote “uniformity of method in teaching doctrine,”79 and to reduce the number of catechisms submitted to the Holy See for approval, Propaganda insisted the bishops not approve or disapprove them, but commission the creation of one. Its officials recommended Robert Bellarmine’s sixteenth-century Dottrina Cristiana—a widely used catechism enjoying favored status with the Holy See—as a reference. The US bishops did not comply. They maintained a cautious approach: granting approbations without involving

77. Thomas Francis Casey, The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide and the Revision of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore (1829-1830) (Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1957), 106. 78. Ibid. Damphoux's statement, related to Catholic publishing, applies also to the bishops' stance on the huge output of Protestant publishing societies, such as the American Bible Society and Methodist Book Concern. 79. Ibid., 107.

39

themselves in creating one.80 Furthermore, they requested lay assistance: “We would also desire

to correct that irregularity by which prayer books and other works of devotion and instruction are

produced from the press, in several instances, without authority or correction: … We would entreat of you not to encourage such proceedings.”81

The First Provincial Council’s decree on prayer books and catechisms suggests a pattern.

In 1829, the bishops aimed to manage religious publications solely through approbations. The

Holy See introduced a proactive approach—albeit only for catechisms. In subsequent councils,

the US bishops hesitated to mandate a national catechism; instead they created several decrees

addressing the appalling state of prayer books. Eventually at the Third Plenary Council in 1884

they mandated their own books—a catechism and a prayer book.

The First Plenary Council of 1852

By 1852, the Holy See had created five metropolitan sees in addition to Baltimore,

elevating a council of US bishops and archbishops to plenary status. The seven provincial

councils of Baltimore from 1829 to 1849 did not address catechisms or prayer books, but the

issue was again addressed at the First Plenary Council of 1852. After repeating the prayer book

decrees of 1829, the council strengthened the approbation process. The decrees recommended

each bishop appoint priest theologians to assist in granting approbations. Addressing a common

practice, the council forbade publishers from seeking episcopal approval outside the place of

publication. Without adding to the catechism decrees, the bishops privately discussed a national

edition and appointed a committee to study the matter. The committee, including Bishop Martin

80. Ibid., 105-111, 217; Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 50-52. 81. Peter Guilday, The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1919 (Washington, DC: National Catholic Welfare Council, 1923), 30.

40

Spalding of Louisville, reported in private session, but an official resolution eluded the bishops.

Without a mandate, Piet & Co. of Baltimore published a catechism after the council—based

upon Spalding’s 1852 diocesan edition—and advertised as the council’s catechism. The next

plenary council (1866) resumed consideration of the issue, indicating Spalding’s catechism

lacked wide support. The bishops had yet to formulate a decree for a national catechism.82

Meanwhile others called for reform and advocated prayer books including only approved prayer formulas. Some mid-nineteenth-century Catholics, especially high-profile Protestant converts, disapproved of the overabundance of devotions. The nation’s leading lay Catholic intellectual, Orestes Brownson, cited seventeenth- and eighteenth-century prayer books as examples of “simplicity and antiquity.” He attributed the size of “monster prayer-books” to , non-sanctioned prayers especially to saints, hymns, catechetical text, and unauthorized

Roman Missal translations. While approving the and the Blessed Virgin

Mary he supported prayer books in general but cautioned their use hindered prayer “from the heart.” He claimed the insubstantial bulk became a flash point for non-Catholics and accused publishers of self-interest, using bishops as “patrons rather than impartial judges.” Brownson recommended publishers actively engage in the approbation process and hire theologian-priests to participate in the prayer books’ compilation.83

William Barry, of Mount Saint Mary’s of the West Seminary in Cincinnati,

provided a theological argument for prayer book reform. He gave the standard definition of a

82. For the decree on prayer books, see Concilium Plenarium totius Americae Septentrionalis Foederatae Baltimori habitum anno 1852 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1853), art. 8; For notes from the private session on the catechism, see ibid., 29-30; See also, John Tracy Ellis, "The Centennial of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore," in Perspectives in American Catholicism, ed. John Tracy Ellis (Baltimore: Helicon, 1963), 152; Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 176, 179; Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 113-114; Bryce, 62, 70-72. 83. Orestes Brownson, "Prayer-Books," Brownson's Quarterly Review 2, no. 6 (1857): 184-190.

41

sacrament as an outward sign, instituted by Christ, which confers grace. Barry distinguished a

sacramental as an outward sign, instituted by the church, which assists in obtaining grace.

Church-approved prayer formulas, given a “white mark,” qualify as sacramentals and advance

prayer. Prayer formulas not condemned but not church-instituted diminish prayer. Condemned

prayer formulas, given a “black mark,” invalidate prayer. He claimed mid-nineteenth-century

Catholic prayer books included many prayer formulas without the “white mark” and asked,

“Why should we prefer them to those that have?” He proposed a neo-garden prayer book

containing primarily sacramental prayer formulas—perhaps suggesting the “Garden of the

Liturgy” supplant The Garden of the Soul.84

The above critiques reveal a problem in nineteenth-century prayer book reform.

Reformers recommended sacramentals or prayer formulas approved by the local ordinary, while

warning about English translations of the liturgy, the church’s official prayer. Until 1857, the

Holy See’s rules on vernacular editions of the Roman Missal added to the confusion. Pope

Alexander VII condemned a French translation in 1661. But other translations in Europe

remained, and ones newly created, even in France, caused an inconsistent approach. British Isles

Catholics used an English translation of the Roman Missal for generations. Yet, Charleston

Bishop John England’s reprint in 1822 for US Catholics caused a stir with Propaganda. In the mid-nineteenth century, the Holy See clarified the rules. The Congregation of Rites forbade

another French Missal translation in 1851. Brownson’s recommendations referred to this

decision. A papal decree in June 1857 settled the issue and condemned vernacular translations of

84. William James Barry, The Sacramentals of the Holy Catholic Church: Or Flowers from the Garden of the Liturgy (Cincinnati, OH: John P. Walsh, 1858), 15-17.

42 the Ordinary of the Mass, and prohibited bishops from granting approbation. The latter remained in effect until 1877.85

The Second Plenary Council of 1866

Archbishop Martin Spalding, member of the 1852 catechism committee and appointed archbishop of Baltimore in 1864, convoked the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. He aimed to create a comprehensive canonical code for the US church “to break the pattern of [previous councils’] piecemeal legislation.”86 The council exceeded all other nineteenth-century ones held in the United States by producing 534 articles. Because it followed the 1854 papal definition of the and the 1864 Syllabus of Errors, the council included doctrinal decrees as well as the customary pastoral and organizational ones. Given such an effort, one might expect decrees related to the catechism.

Again, a committee studied the issue and, again, the bishops deliberated. Unable to agree, they merely repeated their predecessors’ decree of 1829. While creating a national catechism remained elusive, the bishops strengthened their approbation process for prayer books and issued three decrees. They reaffirmed the condemnation of unauthorized books and recommended appointing diocesan censors. Having no aim of becoming publishers, they highlighted dioceses with Catholic publishing houses. Echoing Brownson’s sentiments, they advised diocesan examiners to check the prayer books’ overall —a defect they claimed provided evidence for non-Catholics to use against the Church. They directed promotion of Brownson’s recommended

85. Paul C. Bussard, “The Vernacular Missal in Religious Education” (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1937), 10-11, 31-32, 37-39; Peter Guilday, The Life and Times of John England, First Bishop of Charleston (1786-1842) (New York: America Press, 1927), 1:328-333; Brownson, 187. 86. David Spalding, ", Legislator," Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 75, no. 3 (1964): 160.

43

Litany of the Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as the Litany of the Holy Name of

Jesus. In their pastoral letter, they highlighted publishers’ advertisement of their as a sign of patronage and not to interpret episcopal approbation as a positive endorsement but a statement a book contains no doctrinal error.87

The 1866 Second Plenary Council prayer book decrees indicate a national episcopate

delegating publishing tasks. The bishops did not mandate a national catechism or prayer book

but, lacking their own publishing enterprise, endorsed a trusted Catholic publisher.

“Considerable interest was aroused” when the bishops gave their approbation to the nascent

effort of Isaac Hecker, founder of the Missionary Society of St. or Paulist

Fathers, and his dream of a national firm, the Catholic Publication Society (CPS).88 He actively

sought to participate in the council’s deliberations. Assigned to the committee on Catholic

publications, Hecker introduced his vision. In 1865, he started the Catholic World, a national

magazine, and conceived a wider publication effort to produce tracts, pamphlets, and books as

Protestant denominations sponsored for decades. Several influential Catholic leaders, including

Archbishops Martin Spalding of Baltimore and John McCloskey of New York and Brownson

supported him. Spalding wrote the society’s first . For its support, Hecker sought funds from

auxiliary societies affiliated with parishes throughout the country, akin to sodalities. He

87. For the reiteration of First Provincial Council catechism decree, see Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi a die VII ad diem XXI Octobris A.D. MDCCCLXVI habiti, et a Sede Apostolica Recogniti: Acta et Decreta (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1868), 201 (art. 387); For the prayer book decrees, see ibid., 254-355 (art. 502-504); For the pastoral letter, see Guilday, The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1919, 213; See also, Raymond J. O'Brien, "History of Our English Catechism," Ecclesiastical Review 91 (1934): 595; Bryce, 72-73; Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 114; Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 213. 88. Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 219. (Catholic Publication Society herafter cited as CPS).

44

anticipated funds from national collections. Through a single, approved Catholic publisher, the

bishops could more positively promote Catholic publications.89

Increasingly frustrated with the burgeoning Catholic publications, the bishops at the

Second Plenary Council recognized the need for proactive approaches. Sebastian Smith,

diocesan priest and instructor of law at Immaculate Conception Seminary, Seton Hall

College, South Orange, New Jersey, acknowledged the impossible task of examining books

related to faith and morals, given the bishop’s other duties and scarcity of priests. He concluded

the decrees had "no practical consequences in this country.”90 Writing in 1874, he did not

comment on the untested idea of an episcopal publisher, suggesting the bishops’ difficulty

uniting for collective action.

The Third Plenary Council of 1884

To address a range of issues facing US Catholics, Propaganda ordered the American

bishops to hold a plenary council, which Bishop Thomas Grace of St. Paul, Minnesota, speaking

for the western bishops (present day Midwest), also advised. Meeting in 1884, the Third Plenary

Council addressed Catholic education, formation of seminarians, immigration, secret societies and, foremost, diocesan priests’ lack of canonical rights given unchecked authority of bishops.

89. Paul J. Fullam, "The Catholic Publication Society and Its Successors: 1866-1916," Historical Records and Studies 47 (1959): 16-25; For the decree endorsing the Catholic Publication Society, see Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi a die VII ad diem XXI Octobris A.D. MDCCCLXVI habiti, et a Sede Apostolica Recogniti: Acta et Decreta, 252-253 (art. 500); For its endorsement in the Pastoral Letter, see Guilday, The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1919, 214. 90. S. B. Smith, Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: P. O'Shea, 1874), 362, 354-366.

45

Priests’ appeals of authoritarian bishops’ decisions to Propaganda and the bishops’ lack of

support in these cases frustrated the Holy See.91

Noted Catholic historian, , included book publishing as an issue for

the council to address. He elaborated on the shift toward a proactive approach. The bishops must

ensure access to exemplary books—not just acceptable books. Shea suggested the idea of selecting an approved Catholic publisher, while attracting interest after the Second Plenary

Council, lacked implementation. "Organizations for the production and diffusion of good books

have from time to time engaged the serious thoughts of the hierarchy, and associations, like the

Metropolitan Press, in Baltimore, the Catholic Publication Society, in New York, and a similar

project in Cincinnati, were started, but did not meet with the anticipated success, and the concern

in each case passed into private hands.”92 CPS, as the Second Plenary Council designated,

remained in business because of Hecker’s fundraising through public lectures and appeals. When his health failed in 1872, his George continued financial support until 1883 when he sold the publishing house. When the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore opened in 1884, the Paulists no longer operated the society.93

The legislation of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore resolved several longstanding

issues at a time of episcopal unity. Despite ethnic diversity, US Catholics were unified around

doctrine and liturgical practice. To hand on the faith to future generations and supposedly assuring the church’s survival, the bishops required parish schools, initiated a national university,

91. John Tracy Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921 (: Bruce, 1952), 1:203-206; Robert Frederick Trisco, Bishops and Their Priests in the United States (New York: Garland, 1988), 225-226. 92. John Gilmary Shea, "The Coming Plenary Council of Baltimore," American Catholic Quarterley Review 9 (1884): 353. 93. Fullam, 64.

46

catechism, and prayer book. The council added checks to a bishop’s authority such as creating

irremovable rectors and requiring the creation of diocesan , while preserving his

governance: In certain situations he could veto priest consultors and judge secret societies. The

council’s decrees provided a blueprint for the twentieth-century Catholic subculture and a model

document for other national episcopates.94

Despite their general consensus at the council, the bishops’ attempt to establish general

practice fell short of expectations. First, the bishops collaborated with the Holy See, which initiated the council, though requested by US western bishops, and created the initial schema.

Propaganda’s desire for conformity to Roman cultural practices constrained the US bishops’ efforts at the council. According to Gerald Fogarty, the council’s final decrees were “American

formulations of basically Roman documents.”95 Second, the bishops disagreed on the limits of the Holy See’s influence and differed in their understanding of American culture. Progressive bishops, such as Baltimore Archbishop James Gibbons, of St. Paul, and John Keane of Richmond, championed a distinct American Catholic culture and advanced an integral relationship between the US church and society. They sought to limit Roman and foreign traditions. Conservative bishops—Archbishop of New York, Bishop Bernard

McQuaid of Rochester, and German-ethnic bishops—opposed too much adaptation to American

94. Robert Emmett Curran, Michael Augustine Corrigan and the Shaping of Conservative Catholicism in America, 1878-1902 (New York: Arno Press, 1978), 113-116; Philip Gleason, "Baltimore III and Education," U.S. Catholic Historian 4, no. 3 (1985): 297-302; Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 244-245. 95. Gerald P. Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870-1965 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1985), 62.

47 culture. Implementation of conciliar decrees related to parochial schools, a national university, secret societies, as well as German Catholic practices, exposed episcopal divisions.96

More extensive preparation preceded the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore than the first two plenary councils. For instance, Propaganda initiated a conference with the US archbishops, led by Gibbons, in November 1883 in Rome to determine an agenda. The following documents mark several stages of its decrees: Capita praecipua, Relatio collationum, Capita proposita, Relationes, Schema decretorum, the private Acta et decreta, and the public Acta et decreta. The congregation provided the foundational schema, Capita praecipua, containing thirteen chapters. The Relatio collationum contains the conference notes, and the US archbishops’ meetings with the cardinals of Propaganda resulted in an updated schema, Capita proposita. Gibbons distributed its thirteen chapters to bishops of the twelve US provinces (giving

Cincinnati two chapters) in early 1884. As requested, each province’s archbishop in meeting with his suffragan bishops composed a report on an assigned topic. Their papers were published in the Relationes and distributed to every US bishop for further review on August 7, 1884.

Gibbons directed a group of theologians to draft the initial schema, the Schema decretorum, and distributed it to the bishops three before the council. The Third Plenary Council met from

November 8 to December 5, 1884. The private Acta et decreta contains the council’s meeting notes and set of decrees, presented to Propaganda in early 1885. The congregation reviewed and clarified some decrees resulting in the public Acta et decreta, approved by Pope Leo XIII on

September 21, 1885.97

96. Ibid., 27-64; Gleason, 302-306. 97. Francis P. Cassidy, "Catholic Education in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore: I," The Catholic Historical Review 34, no. 3 (1948): 262; Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-

48

Examining how legislation was drafted reveals a relationship of catechism to prayer book. The initial Roman conferences mentioned neither. Archbishop of Chicago addressed the need for a national catechism as the Relationes record. Bishop Francis Janssens of

Natchez, after reviewing the Relationes, supported the Chicago proposal. Gibbons formed a catechism committee on August 25, 1884. In the schema’s decree number 243, council theologians proposed a national catechism, stating its importance and urgency.98

Given the desire for a national catechism, the bishops considered a national prayer book less important—perhaps even a novelty. No bishop called for a national prayer book during the review process.99 While theologians drafted the schema, Gibbons sought Cincinnati Archbishop

William Elder’s advice: “I am very much in favor of having an authorized Prayer-book—as well as Catechism—adopted by the Council. The prayer-book should be modeled after the Breviary. I have not time to develop my thought on this subject.”100 In reply, Elder endorsed the need for a catechism but placed less value on an authorized prayer book. His response reflects the personal nature of prayer books and the need for better English translations of ancient prayers. He did not encourage Gibbons but reflected on the prayer book’s potential as an anthology and recommended:

1921, 1:210-11, 1:230-231; For a description of Propaganda's review process, see Gerald P. Fogarty, The Vatican and the Americanist Crisis: Denis J. O'Connell, American Agent in Rome, 1885-1903 (Rome: Università Gregoriana, 1974), 50-51. 98. Relationes eorum quae Disceptata fuerunt ab Illmis ac Revmis Metropolitis cum Suis Suffraganeis in Suis Singulis Provinciis super Schema Futuri Concilii: Praesertim vero Super Capita cuique Commissa (Baltimore: n.p., 1884), 37. The Catholic University of America's Rare Books and Special Collections preserves a Relationes tract; Kasteel, 164; Gibbons to Catechism Committee, August 25, 1884, 78L11 and 78L12, Gibbons Papers, AAB; For the proposed mandate of urgent action for a national catechism, see Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General and Councils, AAB, 64 (art. 243). 99. The Relationes included a report from Archbishop of Milwaukee, who attached a proposal from his suffragan, the Vicar Apostolic of the Dakota Territory and Benedictine, Martin Marty, titled De Officiis Divinis. But Marty stressed the importance of the liturgy in general and a need for proper celebration of liturgical chant. 100. Gibbons to Elder, September 1, 1884, Elder Papers, AACIN.

49

Prayer books are so much a matter of individual attractions given of human tastes - that I do not suppose any authorized one would supplant the others. It would be useful in this respect - to fix the formulas of prayers - especially of those translated & belonging to the liturgy - and in general of those which are most frequently recited in public including those recently ordered by the Holy Father: the De Profundis - the Litanies - the Miserere &c. As a general rule, I believe the oldest forms of translations are the poorest and most idiomatic English. A common Catechism is certainly desirable, if there is any probability of making one that will be generally acceptable. I used to hear it said that in France, a new Bishop's first work was to reform his predecessor's catechism: & his second, to reform the Breviary. And I think there is "a good deal of human nature" in America, as well as in France.101

Gibbons and the theologians discussed an authorized prayer book while developing the

initial schema. The genesis for the concept is unknown. Perhaps Gibbons recommended it,

though he states only favoring the idea. For continuity’s sake, the theologians reviewed and cited

previous Baltimore councils, the Roman schema, and the Relationes. Conceivably, they

recognized the historical relationship between catechisms and prayer books and thereby favored

creating both books. Perhaps in preparing the schema, the English bishops’ planned prayer book

informed their decision. The English bishops initiated their effort in 1871 and reviewed proof

sheets in early 1884.

Regardless of origin, the theological committee proposed a national prayer book in the

Schema decretorum and placed it and the catechism in the section De Doctrina Christiana.102

Accordingly, the draft reveals the prayer book’s association with the catechism and its

importance for faith formation. For each, they recommended appointment of a bishops’

committee and a review process. The council adopted the schema and appointed Gibbons to chair the prayer book committee:

101. Elder to Gibbons, September 11, 1884, 78P1, Gibbons Papers, AAB. 102. See Appendix One for complete English translations of the proposed and final prayer book edicts.

50

We therefore decree that among the fathers of this Plenary Council a committee be appointed, under the leadership of the most reverend Apostolic Delegate, charged to entrust this very important task to devout men who are expert in the sacred liturgy, and to see that they accomplish this task without delay and as soon as possible. Let the entire body of Bishops submit the book to rigid examination and then transmit it to the most reverend Archbishops, who will order the book, thus once more examined, as has been said of the catechism, to be printed with proper care.103

The schema’s wording, modified during council debates, more clearly expresses the

initial reasoning for an authorized prayer book than the final decrees. In the style of council

documents, the schema describes the complex and dire state of US prayer books. But it candidly

addresses the limits of approbation. Quoting the Second Plenary Council, the text asserts

previous approaches no longer applied: “In today’s situation, it does not seem sufficient to us

‘that theologian Examiners, in healing the stylistic defects and vices that are sometimes more serious in prayer books, use a doctor’s touch.’” The committee recommended “the true and wholesome norm of prayer which the Church proposes in the sacred liturgy.” failed precisely because prayer books did not include prayer forms from the Catholic liturgy. Despite the publishers’ good intentions, the books “cannot perfectly express the strength and sweetness of true and Catholic piety. It is from the Author and Completer of the faith, who lives always to intercede for us (Heb. VII. 25), the Church receives the wondrous and divine form of prayer which in every age must be taught to the faithful.”104 The proposal created a conundrum: How to

make the official liturgical prayer formulas accessible to the laity? The Catholic liturgy and its

official books in Latin were directed to the religious’ or clergy’s use. Fortunately, in 1877, the

103. Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1886), 122 (art. 223); Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General Synods and Councils, AAB, 66 (art. 249). Emphasis added indicating modifications to the Schema during council deliberations. 104. Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General Synods and Councils, AAB, 64-65 (art. 244-245).

51

Congregation of Rites loosened its ban and reserved translations of the Roman Missal, which

some understood to apply to all liturgical books, “to the authority of the Bishops.”105

Given these constraints, the schema, citing the Council of Trent, recommended a solution

centered on liturgical education, one of the four fundamental tasks of catechesis. Echoing Trent’s

decree, the schema mandated priests to “explain, frequently, accurately and clearly the rites and

prayers of the Church, from the and in the instruction of children.” Modern advances in

literacy and media justified improvements. The schema emphasized the role of books in carrying

out the Tridentine mandates. The priest’s teaching “will bear greater fruit and their listeners will

progress much more in their knowledge of sacred matters if they have books at hand, at home

and at church, that can express the blossoming, strength and meaning of the sacred Liturgy.”106 A lay prayer book containing prayer formulas from the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual aided the priestly task.

The council modified the schema’s wording, diminishing the book’s role in assisting the priest to fulfill the Tridentine mandate. The final decree highlighted the priests’ role as primary liturgical educator to “explain excerpts from the text of the Mass,” a liturgy based on the Roman

Missal. He must “explain to the people with piety and prudence and in their own language the efficacy, the use and the rites of the sacraments,” based on the Roman Ritual. The council turned the spotlight from the book’s role to the priest’s importance.107

The schema provided a theological framework for including liturgical prayer forms in a

lay prayer book. Liturgical prayer forms are Christian doctrine and teach the faith and bring

105. Bussard, 35-36. 106. Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General Synods and Councils, AAB, 65 (art. 246). 107. Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV, 121 (art. 221).

52

Christians into a closer relationship with Jesus. The schema quoted the ancient axiom, Legem

credendi statuit lex supplicandi, “The law of prayer establishes the law of believing,” adding

“and in an absolutely sublime way draws Christians to honor God in all things through Jesus.”108

Nicolai Nilles, Jesuit canon lawyer, in his commentary published after the council, provides

additional theological support. He highlights how the African Council of Carthage in 407, the

Council of Mainz in 813, and Agobardus, the bishop of Lyon, stressed “one and the same form of prayer” used everywhere lest “anything counter to the faith … be incorporated.”109

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore decreed an official prayer book; the bishops

desired it to replace lay devotional books. They recommended accurate translations of a subset of

“precious” prayers from the Roman liturgical books, without mentioning the desired language.

However, by stressing inaccuracies in current English prayers, they implied the latter. They

decreed a national prayer book based upon the liturgy: “The beauties of the sacred liturgy will be

offered to the mind of readers, as it were in a garden of delight.”110 The latter reference evoking

The Garden of the Soul, basis of the English national prayer book of 1886, expresses the aim for

a new garden based on the church’s liturgical forms.

The Publication of an Authorized Prayer Book

CPS assumed the task of publishing the national catechism and prayer book. Urgency

warranted publishing the catechism first. Lessons learned during the Baltimore Catechism’s

creation informed the process of the prayer book’s publication.

108. Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General Synods and Councils, AAB, 65 (art. 245). 109. Nicolaus Nilles, Commentaria in Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense Tertium ex Praelectionibus Academicis, Domestica ed. (Innsbrück: F. Rauch (C. Pustet), 1888), 2:267-268. 110. Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV, 121-122 (art. 221).

53

No longer affiliated with the Paulists, the CPS remained closely associated with several bishops, including Gibbons. Since its founding in 1866, the society served as one of the nation’s premier Catholic publishers. Deriving no financial benefit from the Second Plenary Council’s endorsement, Isaac Hecker and his brother, George, subsidized the society. Nevertheless, competing Catholic publishers viewed it as a clerical infringement on a longstanding lay activity.

The society gained a reputation for its quality products despite intermittent financial hardships.

Its publications expanded from initial offerings of the Catholic World, tracts and books to include a popular annual almanac, monthly juvenile magazine, editions of European works, and school . Furthermore, its distribution network expanded westward.111

The Publisher: Lawrence Kehoe

In leadership of the CPS, Lawrence Kehoe, a gruff Irishman, emerged as its central figure. Born in County Wexford, Ireland, in 1832, Kehoe immigrated to the United States in

1846. At twenty-five, he entered the Catholic publishing business with the New York firm,

Sadlier. Rare for an Irish immigrant at the time, Kehoe became an ardent Republican and abolitionist. As editor of Sadlier’s weekly newspaper, The Tablet, he sparred over issues of slavery and the Civil War with the convert James McMaster, strident anti-Lincoln editor of the nationally circulating The New York Freeman’s Journal. Hecker selected Kehoe, his

“lieutenant,” as business manager for the new Catholic World and CPS. Frank and rough, he was tireless, practical, and demanding. “One had only to see him to be aware of competence.”112

Known and respected in Catholic publishing and ecclesiastical circles alike, Kehoe aimed to

111. Fullam, 23-64. 112. Ibid., 25.

54

raise the standard of Catholic literature. In late 1883, a year before the Third Plenary Council,

Kehoe purchased the CPS from George Hecker and assumed ownership.113

In recounting the Baltimore Catechism’s publication history several scholars point to the

haste of its publication and results thereof. The US bishops designated Peoria Bishop John

Lancaster Spalding, nephew of Archbishop Martin Spalding, to oversee its creation. Many

attribute the catechism’s initial draft to Januarius de Concilio, a council theologian and Italian pastor in Jersey City, New Jersey. Bishops received copies of this draft the day before the

council closed, December 6, 1884. In early January 1885,

Spalding incorporated their proposed revisions, and

Kehoe produced the next draft which the archbishops

received for another review.114 By late February 1885 a

third version was printed and by mid-April the

imprimatur and copyright secured. This hurried process

raised concerns about its content. Reviewers questioned

its theological accuracy, completeness, and pedagogical

method. Not formally reviewed by all US bishops and

Figure 1. Lawrence Kehoe published without submitting it to Propaganda for review, Photo courtesy of American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives (ACUA).

113. Ibid., 25-26; R.T. Rea, "Lawrence Kehoe," in The Illustrated Catholic Family Annual for 1891 (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1891); Certificate of Incorporation of The Catholic Publication Society Company, December 21, 1883, 925/1883C, Certificates of Incorporation, NYCC; Kehoe's purchase did not include the Catholic World, which remained with the Paulists, though he served as its printer until 1887. Kehoe to Hudson, May 18, 1882, x-2-i, Daniel E. Hudson Papers (CHUD), UNDA. 114. After the Third Plenary Council, US archbishops met annually which Fogarty refers to as “an adaptation of the earlier collegial tradition." Spalding’s dissemination most likely occurred via postal mail. Fogarty, The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870-1965, 34.

55

many questioned the final version’s ecclesial approbation.115

Previous US historians of catechesis have ignored the catechism’s business arrangements.

To Paul Fullam, the catechism battle between Sadlier and Kehoe reveals an undefined business

strategy. Sadlier acquired a draft of the catechism and produced master plates. He and Kehoe

attempted to sell plates to other US publishers. The council theologian, Sebastian Messmer, as

John Sharp records, noted the bishops’ decision on the council’s penultimate day: “no copyright

was to be taken out, so that any Catholic publisher might publish this Baltimore Catechism

provided he got the necessary Imprimatur.”116

At the time of the catechism’s third draft, Spalding proposed Gibbons pay Kehoe for the preparatory work or “have an opportunity to get out an edition before other publishers.” Kehoe countered with a plan for him to become sole producer of the master plates. He urged Gibbons to obtain a copyright for the catechism to prevent publishers’ modifications such as “adding a prayer book to it.” Such a plan ensured uniformity and a single point of contact for revisions. In

April, “at this late hour,” Gibbons and Corrigan finalized a business arrangement based on the former’s recollections from the council. A copyright aided managing the required royalty, paid to the local bishop in the publisher’s locale. Spalding applied for the copyright, and Corrigan shut down Sadlier’s “pirated edition.”117

115. Bryce, 87-91, 93-95; Carmody; Frances J. Connell, "Catechism Revision," in The Confraternity Comes of Age: A Historical Symposium (Paterson, NJ: Confraternity Publications, 1956), 189-191; Francis R. McDonnell, “An Inquiry into the History of the Baltimore Catechism” (master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1943); Mark Moesslein, "Origin of the Baltimore Catechism," Ecclesiastical Review 93 (1935); John K. Sharp, "The Origin of the Baltimore Catechism," Ecclesiastical Review 83 (1930); John K. Sharp, "How the Baltimore Catechism Originated," Ecclesiastical Review 81 (1929): The author limits the list to what he considers the main secondary sources related to the Baltimore Catechism's history. 116. Fullam, 65-66; Sharp, "How the Baltimore Catechism Originated," 574-575. 117. Spalding to Gibbons, February 23, 1885, 79E15, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Kehoe to Gibbons, March 5, 1885, 79F8, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Corrigan to Gibbons, April 9, 1885, 79I11, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

56

Kehoe’s networking and drive yielded results. With Gibbons and Corrigan, he stressed the importance of a master publisher, formulated a business plan, and introduced a copyright for

the Baltimore Catechism. Kehoe ensured a key role for CPS and brusquely managed its

production. When his sales agent, John Hammond, informed him a Chicago priest criticized the

catechism, Kehoe retorted, “McMaster also finds fault in it—a sure sign it is good. … These

asses would criticize our Saviour.” When Hammond notified Kehoe that publishers in the West

considered using Sadlier’s plates—after Bishop Ireland informed them that the council agreed

upon no copyright—Kehoe scoffed: “Kelly tried to steal [the] catechism, so did Sadlier—so did

Sullivan—but I put the screws on. I have 18 houses to back me—and the archbishop[s] of

Baltimore and New York—so ’t bother with these people. It is not worth the powder—Kelly

had to get down on his knees & beg to be let off.”118 He complained to Rev. Daniel Hudson, editor of Ave Maria magazine, after the German publisher Hoffman Brothers advertised an updated Baltimore Catechism, that “these Dutchmen are carrying things too far. They dare not correct the catechism. All corrections pass through my hands, and I furnish all alike with corrected lines as pages,” and claimed twenty publishers received master plates from CPS.119

The bishops’ prayer book, because of its potential quality, provided Kehoe an opportunity to improve the US prayer book market, which he previously left to other publishers. In 1881, he turned down a manuscript Hudson submitted:

The last few years the prayer book business has been monopolized by a few houses, and turned into selling on the installment plan, and books are made for size, not quality, so I gave up for a time the idea of getting out a new book until such times as people would

118. Hammond to Kehoe, May 1, 1885, 1, Kehoe - Hammond Correspondence: 1858-1890, ACUA; Kehoe to Hammond, May 12, 1885, 1, Kehoe - Hammond Correspondence: 1858-1890, ACUA. The New York-based Thomas Kelly and M. Sullivan, like Sadlier, published Catholic literature. 119. Kehoe to Hudson, undated, 1886, x-3-b, Daniel E. Hudson Papers (CHUD), UNDA.

57

buy books not for size, as they buy apples or potatoes, but for quality. Will it ever come?120

The Compiler: Clarence Woodman, C.S.P.

To produce the Baltimore Catechism took four months. The authorized prayer book’s

production took longer and its inception hinged on the catechism’s completion. Gibbons initiated

the task in April 1886 after the catechism’s production and abridgement and the Holy See’s

ratification of the council’s decrees in September 1885. CPS published the prayer book in the

summer of 1889, four and a half years after the council’s close.

After addressing criticism of the catechism, Gibbons attempted to create a bishops’

oversight committee and began discussions related to the prayer book’s compilation with a

Baltimore diocesan priest and a New York-based Paulist. As with the catechism’s copyright,

Gibbons not surprisingly worked with New York Archbishop Corrigan:

Like yourself I was very much pleased with Bishop Gilmour's letter on the Catechism. I have a number of letters from various critics finding fault with words here & there. While some of the animadversions were reasonable enough, several [of] them were hypercritical. Now that the Council is off my hands, I am thinking of turning my attention to the Prayer Book. A committee of Bishops was authorized by the council to be appointed to supervise this work. I hope your Grace will allow me to have you on that committee, or you might suggest some other names. I have conferred with Fr. Bartlett on the subject here, & I have advised him to confer with Fr. Hewit.121

Corrigan declined to assist Gibbons with the project, claiming he was too busy but agreed the

New York Paulist “Fr. Hewit’s name is very good for the Prayer-Book.”122

120. Kehoe to Hudson, February 29, 1881, x-2-g, Daniel E. Hudson Papers (CHUD), UNDA; CPS published reprints of a handful of European prayerbooks in 1883, including Garden of the Soul, Key of Heaven, and The Mission-Book. "August 1883 Catalogue of the Catholic Publication Society Co.'s Publications," in The Publishers' Trade List Annual (New York: F. LevPoldt, 1883), 20-23. 121. Gibbons to Corrigan, April 10, 1886, C15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 122. Corrigan to Gibbons, April 12, 1886, 80S5, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

58

Gibbons’s choice of Bartlett, well known in Baltimore, and Hewit, with a wider circle of influence, tapped two converts to Catholicism. Raised by an English Quaker family, William

Edmond Bartlett hailed from Maryland’s Eastern shore. Educated in Rome and ordained in 1872, he became founding pastor of St. Ann’s in Baltimore in 1873 and served there until his death in

1900. Open-minded, progressive, a scholar, and a knowledgeable liturgist, the well-known pastor of “Father Bartlett’s Church” enjoyed the respect of Baltimore’s Catholics and non-Catholics.

His background and authorship of the pamphlet The Way of the Cross led to his assignment to the project.123

Augustine Francis Hewit, son of a Congregationalist minister, converted to Catholicism

in 1846 and joined the Redemptorist order in 1850. One of the founding Paulists, Hewit, a

scholar, prolific writer, and apologist, served as editor of the Catholic World, working

extensively with Kehoe. Considered the “Newman of the American church,”124 Hewit became the

Paulists’ second general, following Isaac Hecker, in 1889.125

Gibbons, with Corrigan’s concurrence, recruited Paulist leadership to compile the

national prayer book. Given the book’s intended users, the Catholic laity, Gibbons’s decision

appears odd. The Paulists sought to convert US Protestants to Catholicism. Paul Robichaud

describes how the society progressed from the evangelical roots of its founder, Isaac Hecker, to

an institutional focus in evangelization in the 1890s, typified by the Paulist, Walter Elliot. The

society evolved from seeking individual converts to creating convert-makers. Furthermore, in the

123. "Father Bartlett: Death of Beloved Pastor of St. Ann's Catholic Church," Baltimore Morning Herald, April 7, 1900; William E. Bartlett, The Way of the Cross: Illustrated by Texts from Holy Scripture (Baltimore: Kreuzer Brothers, 1885). 124. "To Honor Father Hewit: The Golden Jubilee of His Priesthood to be Observed," New York Times, March 25,1897. 125. New , (2003), s.v. "Hewit, Augustine Francis."

59 early twentieth century, the Paulists took on ongoing responsibility to specific pastoral work, such as college chaplaincy. Elliot served as "a bridge between the evangelical mission of the

Paulists and the work of the institutional church.”126 The prayer book’s production occurred during this transitional stage. The Paulists had not been engaged in the Baltimore Catechism’s creation—as far as we know—but, during its production, hosted De Concilio and Spalding at St.

Paul’s in New York, their new mother church. For the prayer book, they played a larger role.

In due course, Clarence Woodman, Hewit’s close friend, and like him, a priest-convert of the Paulist Fathers, took on the task. Clarence Eugene Woodman epitomized the Paulists’ earliest priests, highly educated Protestant converts to Catholicism and strongly identified with the

United States. Born in 1852 in Saco, Maine to Andrew

Jackson Woodman and Abigail Haley, he inherited a proud American pedigree and belonged to the Society of Colonial Wars and the Sons of the American

Revolution. Writing to Msgr. Robert Seton, grandson of

Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, Woodman claimed kinship to Ensign William Longfellow, an ancestor of the poet,

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. He graduated from the

Episcopal Church’s College, in Hartford,

Connecticut, in 1873. Baptized Methodist, he became Figure 2. Rev. Clarence Eugene Woodman. Photo courtesy of Paulist Fathers Archives, Episcopalian at Trinity. Woodman studied for the Washington, DC (PFA).

126. Paul Robichaud, "Evangelizing America: Transformations in Paulist Mission," U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 2 (1993): 62, 65-67.

60

Episcopal priesthood, 1873-1875, at General Theological Seminary in .127

While studying for the ministry, and the influenced his religious journey. He converted to Catholicism in 1875. Soon thereafter,

Woodman applied to the Paulists, and Hewit oversaw his acceptance into the society. During

Paulist formation, including stays at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Troy, New York, and Amherst

College, Woodman resided in San Jose, California, to recover from tuberculosis. Officially received into the society on June 28, 1879, becoming the thirty-fourth Paulist, Woodman was ordained a priest on July 13, 1879 in San Francisco. His relationship with Hewit continued through the years, and he assisted at his in 1897.128

A Renaissance man, Woodman published works and pursued interests that classify him

as a scientist, perhaps an astronomer or mathematician. He assisted George Searle, later the

Paulists’ fourth superior general, as an astronomer at the Catholic University of America

observatory and participated in Samuel Langley’s Smithsonian Institution expeditions. He

created sundials throughout the United States, one for Henry Flagler, a founder of Standard Oil

Company. Hecker admired Woodman and described him as gifted with “poetic instinct” and

literary skill, and as “a model of pulpit .” A linguist and a photographer, Woodman wrote

plays and musical pieces. Henry O'Keeffe’s tribute reveals a frail disposition, describing him as

127. The Paulist Calendar, "Father Woodman," Obituary, January 1925; Woodman to Seton, November 8, 1894, II-1-d/2, Robert Seton Family Papers (CSET), UNDA. 128. Henry E. O'Keeffe, "Father Woodman--A Tribute," The Catholic World, January 1925, 516; Bill Edens and Ken McGuire, Paulist Second Chronicles (n.p.: Magi Press, 2000), 141; "Funeral of Father Hewit: The Beautiful and Impressive Ceremonies in the Church of the Paulist Fathers," New York Times, July 8, 1897.

61

“a ‘chronic sickist,’ there was more melancholy and resignation in his manner and even in his voice.”129

Did Woodman meet the criteria set forth in the Third Plenary Council’s recommendations? The council charged a bishops’ committee to “entrust this very important task to devout men who are expert in the sacred liturgy.” His skills in oratory, literature, and classical languages qualified him for compilation and translation of Latin. His academic background shows no scholarship in Catholic liturgy, then an obscure and ahistorical field of study focusing on rubrics.130 Aspects of his experience touched upon liturgy. Knowledge of time, needed in his sundial and astronomy expertise, pertained to liturgy. Having been an Episcopalian liturgically formed by The Book of Common Prayer, he was accustomed to daily liturgical prayer. Of particular note, John Henry Newman’s thought and daily praying the Roman Breviary influenced him. Upon Newman’s death in 1890, a year after the prayer book’s publication, he showed his

Paulist colleague, O’Keeffe, “a tiny Horæ Diurnæ used and autographed by the great Cardinal, but then in his possession and a personal gift.”131 Newman’s many interests included the Roman liturgy. An Oxford movement tenet, the full restoration of the liturgy of The Book of Common

Prayer, spurred exploration of its Catholic heritage. While an Anglican, Newman translated hymns from the Roman Breviary into English for an intermittent effort to translate the entire

129. Thomas E. Kissling, "Priest-Astronomers Were on Staff of Smithsonian Institution 67 Years Ago, Also Founded Observatory at Catholic U.," N.C.W.C. News Service, November 9, 1957; "Father Woodman Dies In Berkeley, Calif.," Wilmington Sunday Star, December 6, 1924; O'Keeffe, The Catholic World, January 1925, 515, 514-517. 130. Michael G. Witczak, "Prayer and Worship at St. Francis Seminary: A Sequicentennial Perspective, 1845- 1995," in St. Francis Seminary: Sesquicentennial Essays, ed. Steven M. Avella (St. Francis, WI: St. Francis Seminary, 1997). Witczak juxtaposes the Third Plenary Council's desire to broaden liturgical studies with the main used in US seminaries starting in 1877, which continued to focus on rubrics. 131. O'Keeffe, The Catholic World, January 1925, 516.

62

breviary. Though the project was not completed, Newman’s hymns appeared in several

publications.132

The Creation: Three Phases

Scant evidence reveals the national prayer book’s compilation process. Notwithstanding,

three phases emerge. The first, approximately six months in duration, produced its initial draft.

Gibbons’s proposal of Bartlett and Hewit as compilers in 1886 initiated the phase, concluding

with Woodman’s notification of first proofs in the fall of 1886. A lacuna of two years marks the second and longest phase. The resumption of review letters, in the fall of 1888, commences the

third and final phase concluding with final production in the summer of 1889.

After Woodman’s assignment as prayer book compiler, CPS produced an initial draft in a few months. Kehoe and CPS, with offices at 9 Barclay Street, and Woodman, residing at St. Paul the Apostle Church, enjoyed close proximity in New York City.133 By then Kehoe had learned from the catechism effort, and in August 1886 Woodman copyrighted the book before its dissemination for review.134

The prayer book’s copyright identifies W.E. Bartlett as co-compiler, but after the first

draft he reduced his participation. During the book’s final phase, Bartlett’s role was limited to a

single devotion: “I saw a copy of the PrayerBook (!) as it is to be. … Will you let me have a

132. Donald A. Withey, John Henry Newman: The Liturgy and the Breviary. Their Influence on His Life as an Anglican (London: Sheed & Ward, 1992), 8-24. 133. Barclay Street consisted of numerous Catholic publishers in the nineteenth century. The Woolworth Building, completed in 1913 and once the tallest building in the world, sits on the Society’s former location. Thomas F. Meehan, "The Mirrors of Barclay Street," Columbia, December 1923. 134. See copyright 18751, dated 08/18/1886, in: Copyright Office of the United States, Record Book: Numbers 18,001 to 20,000 R, vol. 10 (1886), 188.

63

proof of my which were left-out of the Book? I think I saw a long-page proof of them somewhere. Will you not also send me the C[ash] for which I worked?”135

The initial draft’s title implied controversy: A Liturgical Prayer Book for the Use of the

Catholic Laity of the United States. The title revealed confusion associated with pioneering efforts. The council, stressing the priest’s presider role, intended the book to assist his teaching.

The draft title stated its purpose for the laity’s sole use in liturgical prayer. Regardless, the bold title broadcasted a new type of prayer book for the laity.

Gibbons oversaw the prayer book’s compilation in 1886, the year of his to the cardinalate and convening of a diocesan in September to implement the decrees of the

Third Plenary Council.136 Woodman reported to him the first draft’s completion in November

1886, emphasizing the pressure of a deadline and stated “all copy is ready—having been twice revised and corrected by myself.” Echoing the bishops’ sentiments, he claimed “no one can possibly imagine the errors of all sorts in all of our popular manuals, who has not set to work

systemically to correct them.” He hoped for a quick bishops’ review and anticipated completion in a matter of weeks. “The first installment of proof is to go out to the Bishops this week. After this, the work will proceed rapidly. … Can it not be understood that if the Proof is not returned by each Prelate within a specified time, - say three weeks - his silence will be tantamount to approval, & we can proceed thereupon?”137

135. Bartlett to Kehoe, March 18, 1889, Kehoe - Hammond Correspondence: 1858-1890, ACUA. 136. Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921, 1:277-295; Thomas W. Spalding, The Premier See: A History of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, 1789-1989 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 251-252. 137. Woodman to Gibbons, November 28, 1886, 82F9, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

64

Bishops’ responses to the initial draft have not surfaced. Gibbons and Corrigan resumed correspondence related to the prayer book two years later in the fall of 1888. A few events

perhaps prolonged its development. In January 1887, Gibbons traveled to Rome for the

consistory to complete his reception of the cardinalate and returned home in June. Woodman

voiced his concern: “Will your Eminence leave us carte blanche in the premises during your

absence in Europe? Or will a representative be appointed?”138 John Tracy Ellis lists pressing

issues since or because of the Third Plenary Council, affected by Gibbons’s trip. They included

complaints of US German Catholics presented to the Holy See, planning the national Catholic

university, and Catholics’ membership in secret societies. Gibbons worked with other

and the Holy See to resolve these issues, but he provided the prayer book’s sole oversight.139

Events related to CPS in 1887 possibly influenced the prayer book’s production. In April,

Kehoe stopped printing the Catholic World for the Paulists. Other financial difficulties adversely affected the company. Kehoe’s health deteriorated, and personal family matters intervened. He claimed the loss of $5,000 from an early-1887 printing office fire and a late-1887 fire destroyed much of the society’s building and stock. Fullam notes Kehoe’s correspondence after the latter fire primarily concerns his difficulty paying creditors.140

The longstanding “German Question,” the grievance of US German-speaking Catholics that Irish-ethnic clergy hindered their religious culture, later to emerge as a source of tension for

138. Ibid. 139. Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921, 1:304-315. 140. For Kehoe's financial concerns about the Catholic World, see Kehoe to George Hecker, November 27, 1886, binder #27, Hecker Letters (transcribed), PFA; George Hecker to Walter Elliot, November 29, 1886, binder #27, Hecker Letters (transcribed), PFA; Kehoe blames a March 5, 1887 fire for schoolbooks' delay to Rev. Peter Baart, secretary of school board for the Detroit diocese, see Kehoe to Peter Baart, March 19, 1887, 1/8, Peter A. Baart Papers (CBAA), UNDA; For a description of the November 9, 1887 fire, see Editors, "Literary and Trade Notes," Publishers Weekly, November 12, 1887; Fullam, 67-69.

65

many issues, perhaps affected the prayer book’s review. Germans, then the second largest US

Catholic ethnic group after the Irish, considered preservation of their language and culture

essential to Catholic identity. Under the slogan, “Language Saves Faith,” they defended their

own national parishes and other institutions such as orphanages, a German press, and mutual

benefit associations. Likewise their worship included music and ritual unknown to the Irish so

they desired their own religious communities, catechisms, parochial schools, and seminaries, not

to mention prayer books.141

Peter Abbelen, of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, submitted a to

Propaganda in November 1886. At the Third Plenary Council he participated as a theologian for

Milwaukee Archbishop Michael Heiss, who endorsed his views. Abbelen’s memorial explains

German Catholic grievances that in some places Irish-ethnic bishops, a majority of the US

hierarchy, subordinated German Catholics and their parishes to Irish clergy. Acknowledging the

gradual assimilation of Germans into American culture, Abbelen opposed efforts to accelerate the process. He supported the promotion of English but discouraged bishops’ efforts “to suppress

and root out the language, manners, customs, usages, and devotional practices of the Germans, unless … contrary to the Decalogue or the precepts, discipline, and rubrics of the Church.”142 The

memorial initiated a public debate, extended by the First American German Catholic General

Assembly, or Katholikentag, a national convention of German clergy and laity, held in

September 1887 in Chicago.143

141. Colman James Barry, The Catholic Church and German Americans (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953), 8-12. 142. Ibid., 295 (no. 5). Barry provides an English translation of the Abbelen Memorial and Ireland/Keane's response in Appendix III. 143. Ibid., 62-109.

66

Bishops Ireland and Keane challenged Abbelen’s view, offering a different interpretation of “Language Saves Faith.” What Abbelen viewed as religious and cultural preservation they perceived as an aggressive effort to “Germanize” the US western church. They advocated the accelerated process that Abbelen feared. Stressing the importance of learning the faith in

English, they emphasized the church’s fundamental task—to instill faith, not a particular language for the ethnic children. They feared "religion having been taught to them in German, they will abandon it, in abandoning the German language."144

When Woodman notified Gibbons of the prayer book’s initial draft in late 1886, Abbelen delivered his memorial. No direct evidence links the German Question to the prayer book’s delay, but controversies unfolding concurrently suggest a strong relationship exists between the two events. A national prayer book for all Catholics, as the US bishops authorized, implies uniformity in language and custom. Promoting an English language prayer book while a public debate on language and faith stirred strong reactions seemed inopportune.

Bishop Thomas Grace provides one connection between the prayer book and the German

Question. Grace, as then the only non-German suffragan bishop in the Milwaukee ecclesiastical province, acted as Gibbons’s agent. He informed Gibbons about the inner workings of the selection process for the -archbishop of Milwaukee in 1878. German bishops of the

Milwaukee province composed the list of three candidates, or terna, to ensure a German-ethnic successor to Archbishop John Martin Henni. Grace succeeded in placing Peoria Bishop John

Lancaster Spalding—a non-German but a fluent German speaker—on the list as Gibbons

144. Ibid., 302 (no. 5).

67

proposed.145 Later, he acted as Gibbons’s liaison to German bishops, reporting their views on the

prayer book.

By the fall of 1888, the intensity of the German Question subsided, albeit briefly. In

September, the second Katholikentag in Cincinnati resolved to co-operate with other national

groups. John Ireland, after convincing Propaganda to remove its approval of the convention,

believed he had firmly dealt with the question. By early 1889, he declared “the German question in the West is for the time being at least in perfect repose.”146 After the Diocese of St. Paul’s

elevation to an archdiocese, John Ireland received the , the liturgical insignia of an archbishop, on September 27, 1888. Grace informed Gibbons and collected signatures from attending bishops concerning the national prayer book. The western bishops requested a whole prayer book, claiming they received the book in sections. They further requested appointment of

two bishops to oversee the review. This “course is desirable if the new Prayer Book is to be

published in the name of the Plenary Council.” However, the letter reveals a display of unity

during a lull in the German Question. Grace, Keane, and Ireland, proponents of assimilation,

signed the letter, as did German-speaking bishops of the Milwaukee ecclesiastical province

(before its boundaries were redrawn): Martin Marty (vicar apostolic of the Dakota Territory),

Rupert Seidenbusch (Northern Minnesota) and Kilian Flasch (LaCrosse).147

145. Ellis, The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921, 1:337-338; Barry, The Catholic Church and German Americans, 45-48. 146. Ireland to Gibbons, January 3, 1889, 85N5, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Barry, The Catholic Church and German Americans, 113-120. Peter Paul Cahensly and the Lucerne Memorial resurrected the issue in the early 1890s. 147. Grace, Keane, Ireland, Marty, Seidenbush, Flasch, Maurice Burke, , Henry Cosgrove to Gibbons, September 27, 1888, 85D5, Gibbons Papers, AAB. Heiss (Milwaukee) and Katzer (Green Bay) did not sign the letter. Perhaps because, as Grace states, "in the hurry of getting off on the trains the paper did not reach them in their hotel in time."

68

The dialogue between Woodman and Grace—mediated by Gibbons—suggests the western bishops’ disregarded requests and were frustrated with Gibbons’s oversight. Woodman pointed to their previous lack of participation and the book’s late stage of development. “I have noticed all along that several of those same western Bishops quite ignored the proof-slips, as they were sent.” Claiming previous reactions uncovered no significant criticisms, Woodman reported the work near finished and only the most serious defects should be considered. He remained open to extending the review but listed in detail the problems of doing so. In reply, Grace reiterated the importance of reviewing it “as a whole, instead of piecemeal and in undetermined parts.” Noting the bishops’ view of Gibbons’s lone oversight as a problem, Grace concluded: “It was thought that two bishops could be found who … would be willing to undertake what at best would be a work of drudgery and could require more time and closer examination or inspection than Your Eminence would be able to devote to it.”148

In the fall of 1888, Archbishop Corrigan participated in the prayer book’s review

indicating the analysis extended beyond the German-speaking bishops. He provided Latin to

English translation advice directly to Woodman.149 Because of another review cycle and publication issues, the prayer book’s final production occurred in mid-1889.

Kehoe guaranteed CPS as main publisher of the prayer book by obtaining its copyright and producing its business agreements. In addition to the initial draft’s copyright in 1886, a week after the Woodman-Gibbons-Grace correspondence, and before a final review, Woodman registered a copyright under the title A Manual of Prayer for the Use of the Catholic Laity.

148. Woodman to Gibbons, October 2, 1888, 85E4, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Grace to Gibbons, October 8, 1888, 85F2, Gibbons Papers, AAB. 149. Woodman to Corrigan, September 9, 1888, C19, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY; Woodman to Corrigan, October 12, 1888, C19, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY.

69

Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. The copyright

retained the catechism’s “prepared and enjoined” phrase. He assigned the copyright to Kehoe on

May 28, 1889, a separate business transaction not recorded in the US Copyright Office. Kehoe

queried the Librarian of Congress, Ainsworth Spofford, if Woodman could reassign the

copyright before publication. The latter affirmed its validity if recorded in his office. In

conjunction with Kehoe’s query, Woodman registered another copyright slightly altering the

book’s title. Instead of decreed by the council, this copyright advertised the book Prepared and

Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. Since a book cannot possess

multiple copyrights, the final registration supposedly nullified previous ones. The identification

of the work submitted with the final registration bearing the “prepared and published” title at the

Library of Congress and all Manuals published for the next twenty-eight years contain this title

support this conclusion.150

Kehoe also proposed a business arrangement to Gibbons. As with the catechism, CPS

owned the master plates and positioned itself as the source for future revisions. Publishers entering into a business arrangement with the society agreed not “to make duplicates of these plates or to allow anyone else to do so,” nor to loan the plates to other publishers. Kehoe

successfully secured CPS as the center of the prayer book’s publication.151

150. See the "prepared and enjoined" copyright, 29356, dated 10/16/1888, in: Copyright Office of the United States, Record Book: Numbers 28,001 To 30,000 U, vol. 15 (1888); An 1896 assignment cites Woodman's May 28, 1889, assignment to CPS: Copyright Office of the United States, Assignments of Copyrights, vol. 17 (1896), 85-86 (recorded March 24, 1896); Spofford to Kehoe, June 21, 1889, Kehoe - Hammond Correspondence: 1858-1890, ACUA; See the "prepared and published" copyright, 19092, dated 6/21/1889, in: Copyright Office of the United States, Record Book: Numbers 18,001 to 20,000 U, vol. 10 (1889); To view the work Kehoe submitted for the "prepared and published" copyright see: Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity: Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1889). (https://archive.org/details/manualofprayersf00wood). 151. Kehoe to Gibbons, June 4, 1889, 86B3, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

70

Conclusion

The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore had decreed creation of a uniform catechism and prayer book for US Catholics, a significant event in the history of catechisms and prayer books.

The bishops produced a national prayer book in five years, from inception at the council’s theological preparatory meetings to first copies in the summer of 1889. In contrast, resolving the

“vexed question” of a national catechism took decades. The publication of a national prayer book, viewed as an afterthought, had gained limited attention throughout the nineteenth century indicating how far approved prayer books had fallen out of use. While the book appears an anachronism, the conception of an authorized lay liturgical prayer book in the late-nineteenth century indicates others did not understand its importance and positions the prayer book as ahead of its time. As such, the prayer book foreshadows change and prepares for the liturgical movement of the twentieth century.

CHAPTER TWO

Content

In July 1889, after decades of conciliar discussion and a four-year compilation, the

bishops promulgated a national prayer book, the Manual of Prayers. Intended for US Catholic laity, the comprehensive prayer book provided English translations for the Catholic liturgy: the

Mass, sacraments, and daily prayer. Woodman and Kehoe produced a large 792-page prayer book. The Third Plenary Council’s charge to select valued prayers from multiple Roman liturgical documents contributed to its 792 pages. Most important, owing to its title and size, the work resembled the prayer book genre of its day—the large manual tomes of the Catholic

Revival.

This chapter presents an overview of the prayer book’s structure while describing

Woodman’s utilization of the main sources—those the council prescribed: The Roman Missal,

Breviary, and Ritual. The Roman liturgical books constitute most of the Manual’s contents. The chapter then identifies significant devotions contributing to the book’s content and design. These devotions consist of “exercises of piety; in other words, ceremonies, rituals, divine service, but in some sense other than the strictly official liturgy of the Church.”1 Historical background for some rites and devotions as explained here underscores their importance and provides context of the liturgical and devotional culture of late-nineteenth century US Catholicism.

1. Carl Dehne, "Roman Catholic Popular Devotions," Worship 49, no. 8 (1975): 449. 71 72

An Overview of the Roman Content and the Book’s Structure

The Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual comprise the core set of liturgical books as the

Holy See approved and promulgated after the Council of Trent for the Roman Rite. The Roman

Missal provides the structure, prayers, and liturgical rubrics (directions) for the Catholic Mass.

The Roman Breviary contributes the same for the Divine Office—the daily hours prayed at

designated times (also called offices) throughout the day. The Roman Ritual contains the balance

of the rites, including, but not limited to, sacraments, such as Baptism and ,

miscellaneous blessings (e.g., Blessing of a House or of Pilgrims), and (e.g., Palm

Sunday ).

Roman liturgical books presented editorial challenges for Woodman. Josef Jungmann

describes liturgical developments from the Council of Trent to Vatican II as an “epoch of

inactivity or of rubrics,” producing insignificant changes to liturgical books.2 Yet, even minor

changes required a redactor to secure each book’s current version. Parallel but unrelated to

Woodman’s task, Pope Leo XIII promulgated—the first since the initial versions—official typical editions of the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual prior to the Manual’s compilation.3

These official editions superseded previous ones and provided a single baseline for vernacular translations.4 Furthermore, as the Third Plenary Council stipulated, Woodman chose the “more

2. Josef A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), trans. Francis A. Brunner, New Revised and Abridged ed. (New York: Benziger, 1959), 107; Lancelot C. Sheppard, The Liturgical Books (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962), 25, 48-53, 84. Jungmann's quotation applies to all liturgical books. Sheppard states the same for the Roman Missal, Ritual and, less so, the Breviary. 3. Editiones typicae after Trent and before 1890: Missal (1570/1604/1634/1884), Breviary (1568/1885), and Ritual (1614/1884). Catholic Encyclopedia, (1911), s.v. "Missal."; Pierre Batiffol, History of the Roman Breviary, trans. Atwell M. Y. Baylay (London: Longmans, Green, 1912), 301-302; Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "Ritual." 4. This author referred to the following Roman liturgical books to determine Woodman's sources: Missale Romanum: Ex Decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Editio octava juxta editionem typicam ed. (Regensburg:

73

precious” treasures from the Roman books which he had to translate himself or obtain English translations for his selections.5

With the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual, Woodman procured another Roman book.

For the prayer book to include the sacrament of Confirmation, a rite typically reserved for a

bishop, he made use of the liturgical book for episcopal rites, the . Pope Leo

XIII promulgated its edito typica in 1888, in the later phase of the Manual’s review.6

Moreover, for certain rites, Woodman made use of national liturgical books, which

augmented the Roman ones: the US Roman Ritual Supplement and the US Ceremonial. The

Holy See did not mandate the Roman Ritual’s use, so that "local rituals continued until, by the

20th century, most of them took the form of mere supplements or appendices to the Roman

book."7 The US church, lacking an ancient Catholic past, possessed no local ritual. In 1829, the

First Provincial Council of Baltimore adopted the Roman Ritual given the US clergy’s cultural

diversity. Four years later the Second Provincial Council of Baltimore authorized St. Louis

Bishop Joseph Rosati and Boston Bishop Benedict Fenwick to publish a compact ritual for

missionary use and a larger, but slightly abridged, Roman Ritual incorporating variously

approved US modifications. In 1837, the Third Provincial Council of Baltimore approved the

missionary book.8 In 1840, the Fourth Provincial Council of Baltimore urged Rosati to obtain the

Pustet, 1894); Breviarium Romanum: Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum, Editio prima post typicam ed. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1888); Rituale Romanum: Cui Novissma Accedit Benedictionum et Instructionum Appendix, Edito typica ed. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1884). 5. Woodman arranged the Roman liturgical book’s Latin alongside its English translation in a two-column format, with rubrics, prayers recited by the laity, and Mass prayers and scripture at the end of the book, appearing only in English. 6. Catholic Encyclopedia, (1911), s.v. "Pontificale." 7. The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, s.v. "liturgical books." 8. Excerpta ex Rituali Romano pro Administratione Sacramentorum ad Commodiorem Missionariorum Dioecesum Provinciae Baltimorensis usum (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1842).

74

Holy See’s approval for the Compendium Ritualis Romani, which the Fifth Provincial Council of

Baltimore approved in 1843.9 The latter council allowed an appendix containing certain Ritual prayers in the vernacular. By the 1880s, publishers simply printed the Roman Ritual along with a supplement of US changes.10

In 1829, the First Provincial Council of Baltimore directed Rosati and Bishop John

England of Charleston to create in English a “Book of Ceremonies.”11 The ceremonies included in the book, later renamed the Ceremonial for the Use of the Catholic Churches in the United

States of America, consisted of six Lenten and rites adapted from Memoriale Rituum, a Roman Missal supplement for parishes where a single priest was assigned and included as an appendix in some Ritual publications. The US book aimed to create uniformity, stop abuses, and exclude “even the legitimate local usages of other countries, which cannot here be lawfully introduced,”12 and expanded through many nineteenth-century editions to include instructions for

Benediction and the Forty Hours devotion. Subsequent councils required the book’s usage throughout the United States, and Woodman would have consulted the US Ceremonial’s fifth edition.13

9. Compendium Ritualis Romani: Ad Usum Dioecesum Provinciae Baltimorensis Jussu Concilii Provincialis Balimorensis III (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1842); Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 92, 106, 139; Frederick John Easterly, The Life of Rt. Rev. Joseph Rosati, C.M.: First Bishop of St. Louis, 1789-1843 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1942), 138, 159. 10. "Supplementum Ritualis Romani pro Provinciis Americae Septentrionalis Foederatae," in Rituale Romanum: Cui Novissima Accedit Bendictionum et Instructionum Appendix (Regensburg: Pustet, 1884); Guilday, A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884, 139. 11. Nathan Mitchell, Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (New York: Pueblo, 1982), 324; Easterly, 118. 12. Manual of the Ceremonies Used in the Catholic Church: Faithfully Translated by Order of the First Council, held in Baltimore, in 1829, for the Use of the Churches of the United States of America (Boston: H. L. Devereux, 1833), iv. 13. Ceremonial for the Use of the Catholic Churches in the United States of America, 5th ed. (Baltimore: John B. Piet, 1882); For an apt description of the Memoriale Rituum, see Bartholomew Eustace, Ritual for Small Churches:

75

Since a prayer book serves as a reference, not intended for reading cover to cover,

Woodman provided four navigational guides. A Table of Contents in the Manual’s front matter and an Index in the back assisted the user in locating specific parts. To facilitate further access, a

Directory placed between and Benediction and not listed in the Table of Contents guides the user to appropriate psalms and hymns for Sundays and principal feasts. Moreover, a title heads each page, aiding a reader when paging through the book.

Woodman provided no introduction, thus offering no insights to his intentions or design, and did not divide the Manual into chapters. The Table of Contents supplies a simple listing of sections. A closer analysis of the book’s layout and content suggests a four-chapter structure based upon anticipated usage. The book starts with prayers intended for frequent use and progresses to the infrequent. The final reference chapter assembles hymns, Mass prayers, and scripture readings used throughout the year.

Chapter One: Catholic Prayers for Frequent Use

Table 1 lists contents of the Manual of Prayers’ first chapter as identified in its Table of

Contents. The chapter arranges frequently used prayers for ease of use, justifying placement at the book’s beginning. The table summarizes the Roman liturgical books Woodman used—for each section and the chapter as a whole.14 The overview reveals the Roman sources’ sizeable contribution.

A Translation of the Memoriale Rituum Issued by Pope Benedict XIII, and Revised by Authority of Pope Benedict XV (New York: J. F. Wagner, 1935), iii-iv. 14. Computer-aided text analysis (CATA) quantified Woodman’s sources. After digitizing the Manual, the author “marked” sources. While content analysis tools evaluate and interpret communication data, the author employed CATA to identify source usage using frequency of word counts. To quantify a source, the software counts its words and divides by the book’s total word count. The book’s navigational guides were excluded from

76

The book begins with liturgical calendar information with US feasts. A brief introduction

to Christian doctrine follows, including items every Christian should know, titled an Abridgment

of Christian Doctrine, akin to the Lambeth Constitutions and the Institutio Christiana. The abridgment includes an emergency baptismal rite any lay person could perform. As shown in table 1, the rite accounts for 8 percent of the abridgment. Woodman then provides a short

catechism, A Summary of Christian Faith and Practice, derived from The Garden of the Soul and

bearing no relationship to the Baltimore Catechism.

Woodman placed liturgically-based prayers near related devotional material. In some

cases, those obtained from Roman liturgical books precede devotional prayers, and in others the

opposite holds. This admixture of liturgical and popular prayers explains the prayer book’s

hybrid nature. Nevertheless, the substantial amount of Roman material clearly promotes

liturgical-based prayers while allowing variation.

Prayers commence with those most frequently used—the daily prayers of morning and

evening. Woodman selected the Roman Breviary’s Office of for Morning Prayer and

Compline for Evening Prayer. Unlike earlier “quotidian” English manuals, providing unique

prayers for each day of the week, he included a single set of daily prayers. Prime and ,

as modern scholarship reveals, reflect monastic origins and little heritage in ancient cathedral

prayer.15 Most likely unaware of this history, he perhaps selected these offices for their simplicity. They contained the same set of prayers regardless of day of the week, making them

calculations. When marking text from Roman liturgical books, the books’ Latin and subsequent English translation was considered as derived from the Roman book. Furthermore, while some material appears in multiple liturgical books (e.g., Office of the Dead), the Manual’s text was attributed to the highest priority Roman book containing the text (in the order of Missal, Breviary, and Ritual). 15. Taft, 90, 206-207.

77

Table 1. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for quick or frequent use a Table of Contents: Manual of Prayers Roman (%) Section Page M B R US T Reference Calendar 1 84 3b 87 Movable Feasts, Tables of 14 100 100 Days of Obligation and Devotion 16 Abridgment of Christian Doctrine 20 8c 8 Christian Faith and Practice 25 Daily Morning Prayers (Prime) 37 100 100 prayers Another Form 51 Acts of Faith, Hope, etc. 53 , etc. 55 Grace before and after Meals 58 Litanies of the Holy Name and of Loreto 60 86 86 Evening Prayers (Compline) 69 99 99 Another Form 81 Weekly Devotions for Mass 89 8 8 services Manner of Serving Mass 106 Blessing of Water and 109 39 61 100 Ordinary of the Mass 114 88 3d 91 The , etc. 160 24 14 13 52 Vespers 178 91 2e 93 Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 220 83f 83 Chapter one (25% of book) 28 28 6 2 64 aThe percentage derived from Roman liturgical books, where M=Missal, B=Breviary, R=Ritual, US=Approved US changes, and T=Total of all Roman books. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. The bottom row provides totals for the chapter. bApproved US changes (3%) to the Roman Calendar. cLay Baptism (8%) from the Roman Ritual. dThe “Order of Administration of Holy Communion” for the congregation (3%) from the Roman Ritual. eRubrics (2%) from US Ceremonial. fUS Ceremonial defines Benediction’s rubrics and prayers. attractive for lay prayer. Prime, following the Breviary’s early morning offices of and

Lauds, coincided with the start of the work day. The same hymn, Psalmody (53, 117, and 118), and prayers were recited daily, with minor distinctions between Sunday and week-days.

Compline, the last office of the day and usually prayed before retiring, consisted of the same

78

Psalmody (4, 90, and 133), hymn, of , and prayers, concluding with a seasonal

Marian hymn (such as or ), versicle, response, and .

Woodman promoted, as the Second Plenary Council of 1866 recommended, the only papal-approved devotional litanies, the Litany of the and of the Blessed

Virgin Mary (Loreto), for daily use. Litanies, a vocal prayer with a leader/response structure,

suggest a public or processional practice—the oldest being the Litany of the Saints.

In the twelfth century, Marian devotional litanies emerged for non-liturgical and private use. In the sixteenth century, the Holy See approved for publication the devotional Litany of

Loreto. The Italian village of Loreto houses the of the reputed home of to

Mary. Through time, additional devotional litanies, including the Litany of the Holy Name, surfaced and appeared in prayer books for daily use. The Holy See approved the Litany of the

Holy Name in 1862 for certain dioceses and in 1886 for the whole church.16

The weekly services revolve around Sunday Mass, reinforcing the importance of frequent

Mass attendance. Compared to daily prayers, devotions precede the Roman liturgical prayers:

Asperges and Ordinary of the Mass. The Devotions for Mass section provides three methods of

“hearing” Mass: Join the priest and follow the Mass using the Latin/English Roman liturgical

text, accompanying the priest but praying supplied devotions at indicated times,17 or meditating on a subject related to Christ.

16. New Catholic Encyclopedia, (2003), s.v. "litany."; New Catholic Encyclopedia, (2003), s.v. "Litany of Loreto."; Dictionary of Catholic Devotions, s.v. "Loreto, Litany of."; Dictionary of Catholic Devotions, s.v. "Litany of the Holy Name." The Holy See later approved the Litanies of the (1899), St. Joseph (1909), and Most Precious Blood (1960). 17. Roman Missal material defines these times, explaining the 8 percent in the Devotions for Mass section.

79

After the Ordinary of the Mass, Woodman provided additional Sunday and Mass-related

prayers in “The Te Deum” section. He included the well-known Te Deum, an ancient

thanksgiving hymn of praise sung during Sunday Matins and the Benedictus es, a

versicle/response thanksgiving prayer and a part of the Roman Ritual’s thanksgiving procession.

The section concludes with prayers after Mass, mostly English translations of —the

liturgical prayer of the priest in the .18 The laity also prayed these

prayers after Mass, explaining their position after the Ordinary in the Manual. The Collect’s

primacy and petitionary nature explains its lay usage. Pius Parsch connects the Mass’s Collect with its recurrence in the Roman Breviary and describes it as “the key-note of the day; the epitome of our petitions and intentions.”19 Through the centuries, priests added prayers to the

Mass Collect, Secret, and Post-communion. Explaining this growth, Jungmann points to loss of the Prayers of the Faithful, restored in the reforms of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred

Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and a reduction of the opening litany. The three prayers became “the most obvious place to put into words the special wants for the Church and the needs of the time.” The practice evolved further: “A new substitute was devised, namely the prayers said with the people after Mass.”20 The Manual provided the Roman Missal’s Collects

for various intentions—prayed after Mass—to meet the laity’s needs for intercessory prayer.

Weekly prayers conclude with Sunday Vespers and Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament, a combined service as commonplace to nineteenth-century US Catholics as the Mass,

and which Bishop John Carroll’s 1791 National Synod prescribed. US Ceremonial rubrics

18. In the reforms of Vatican II, the Mass of the Catechumens was retitled Liturgy of the Word. Jungmann, 187. 19. Pius Parsch, The Liturgy of the Mass, trans. H. E. Winstone, 3rd ed. (London: B. Herder, 1957), 128. 20. Jungmann, 256. The Roman Missal’s Orationes Diversae (Sundry Prayers) contains additional prayers for the Collect, Secret, and Post-communion. The Collects provide the Manual's "Occasional Prayers."

80 augment Vespers, derived from the Breviary. Historically, Benediction of the Blessed

Sacrament, as described in the Roman Ritual, served as a concluding service for certain liturgical rites, particularly the Corpus Christi procession. Benediction as a stand-alone devotion varied significantly across regions. While not included in Roman liturgical books until the twentieth century, the Ceremonial assisted in standardizing the US service during the nineteenth century.21

Chapter Two: Catholic Prayers for Less Frequent Use

Table 2 lists the Manual’s second chapter, providing prayers for less frequent use— perhaps monthly or, in many cases, yearly—centered on Communion. Positioning the previous chapter’s Mass prayers before chapter two’s Communion prayers demonstrates the longstanding

Catholic differentiation between Mass attendance and reception of Communion. For centuries, lay Catholics frequently attended Mass but seldom received Communion. Bernard Botte, a

Belgian Benedictine monk associated with the twentieth-century liturgical renewal, attests,

“Communion appeared to be a private devotion without any special link to the Mass.”22 Joseph

Dougherty describes a 1,500-year tradition of infrequent Communion in the Catholic Church. In the middle to late nineteenth century, US parish missions and Eucharistic confraternities encouraged more frequent reception, as had others in the past. However, the practice would not gain momentum until Pope Pius X’s early twentieth-century decrees on the matter.23 The Roman

Missal included no rite for the congregation’s reception of Communion, and the rite’s inclusion

21. Mitchell, 201, 323. 22. Bernard Botte, From Silence to Participation: An Insider's View of Liturgical Renewal, trans. John Sullivan (Washington, DC: Pastoral Press, 1988), 3. 23. Joseph Dougherty, From -Throne to Table: The Campaign for Frequent Holy Communion in the Catholic Church (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), xxiii, 3-4, 24-32, 81-106. The crucial decrees are Sacra Tridentina Synodus (1905) and Quam Singulari (1910).

81

Table 2. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for less frequent use Table of Contents: Manual of Prayers Roman (%)a Section Page M B RT Occasional Occasional Offices-Blessing of Candles 225 100 100 blessings Blessing of Ashes 234 97 97 Blessing of Children 240 100 100 Confession Seven Penitential Psalms and 245 100 100 Litany of the Saints Devotions for Confession 271 5b 5 Communion Devotions for Communion 302 47 47 Visit to the Blessed Sacrament 340 Occasional Way of the Cross 348 devotions Seven Words upon the Cross 361 Rosary (with form of Blessing) 368 17 17 (with form of Investing) 383 95 95 Chapter two (20% of book) 20 22 42 aSee table 1, note a. bThe Roman Ritual’s Form of is included within Devotions for Confession.

in the Manual’s Ordinary described previously, obtained from the Roman Ritual, indicates the

prayer book’s advocacy of reception at Mass.

The chapter’s opening section, Occasional Offices, resembles the structure of the Missal

supplement, Memoriale Rituum, which detailed six Lenten and Holy Week feasts for small

parishes and provided the basis for the US Ceremonial. As in the Memoriale, the Manual begins with and . The yearly blessing of candles and Candlemas procession occurred on February 2. Candlemas, an ancient Christian festival dating from the fourth century occurring forty days after and before , commemorated the ’s visit to the temple. In sixth-century Rome, pre-Lenten preparations gradually encompassed the three

Sundays before Ash Wednesday, which continued until the Second Vatican Council’s reforms—

82

explaining Candlemas’ inclusion in nineteenth-century Lenten/Holy Week ceremonies.24 The yearly blessing and distribution of ashes occurred on Ash Wednesday, the start of the Lenten

Season. The Manual then refers the reader to the publisher’s “Holy Week Book” for the remaining offices. The periodic Blessing of Children, from the Roman Ritual, concludes the occasional offices.

While the Manual encouraged the frequent reception of Communion, the next set of prayers acknowledges the common practice of infrequent Communion—and the strong link between Communion and Confession. Most nineteenth-century US Catholics received

Communion annually, fulfilling Lateran Council IV’s requirement (1215) to receive communion at least once a year, during the season. While Communion simply required proper intention and the absence of , a piety developed stressing Christ’s divinity and humanity’s weakness. This piety emphasized the necessity of proper preparation, thereby demanding penance prior to Communion.25 Dougherty emphasizes this connection in his frequent

Communion study: “The question was not really about the frequency of Communion per se; it

was a question of the proper dispositions for Communion.”26

Table 2 shows considerable material surrounding Communion, starting with the Seven

Penitential Psalms and concluding with the Visits to the Blessed Sacrament section, supporting

the practice of forming a proper disposition. A similar structure lies within the Devotions for

Confession and Communion sections: Instructions, devotional prayers, and last-minute directions

prepare for, and thanksgiving prayers follow, each sacramental rite. The effort centered on

24. Alistair MacGregor, "Candlemas: A Festival of Roman Origin," in Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (London: Burns & Oates, 2008), 145. 25. Jungmann, 500-501. 26. Dougherty, 41. See also 10, 12, 22, and 64.

83

preparation for Communion and cultivating gratitude afterwards. The prevalence of these

exercises warranted Pius X to stress the subordinate role of “human intervention”—efforts which

“pale in comparison to the impact of the Real Presence”— in the 1905 decree, Sacra Tridentina

Synodus.27

Pairing the Seven Penitential Psalms with a litany possesses a history associated with

penance—and with death. Eighth-century documents relate monks reciting, besides official prayers, Penitential Psalms with litanies at a monk’s burial. The practice of monks praying them

regularly in common became widespread by the late tenth century.28 Included in the earliest extant thirteenth-century English prayer books, lay Catholics regularly prayed the Seven

Penitential Psalms and Litany of the Saints for penance and petition and in like manner when

near death.29 The Holy See standardized the Litany of the Saints after Trent.30 In the Roman

Ritual, they included the Seven Penitential Psalms and the Litany of the Saints as a liturgical unit

in a chapter on Extreme Unction, the sacrament normally received near death. Unlike chapter

one’s devotional litanies, the Litany of the Saints “retains its place in the great consecratory

actions of the liturgy.”31 Because of its inclusion—along with the Penitential Psalms— in the

Roman Ritual, one of its liturgical forms served as a litany for the dying.32 The Manual, by

positioning the two as preparation for Confession and Communion—and not as preparation for

27. Ibid., 22-23. 28. Bishop, 216, 218, 220. 29. Duffy, Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers, 9-10. For an example of regular usage of these prayers, see p. 113. 30. Michael D. Whelan, "The Litany of Saints: Its Place in the Grammar of Liturgy," Worship 65, no. 3 (1991): 218. Whelan describes the plethora of saints and accompanying litanies before Trent's imposed uniformity, which required "permission to vary ... the Roman form." 31. Martimort, "The Dialogue Between God and His People," 155. 32. Whelan, 219. Whelan lists three forms of The Litany of the Saints before the Second Vatican Council's reforms. A shorter form for and the Vigil of and a longer form for blessing a church, cemetery, etc., complete the list.

84

death in the Manual’s later Extreme Unction section—maintained the traditional prayer book’s

penitential usage while utilizing the Roman Ritual text.

The Devotions for Confession section includes little Roman material—only the Roman

rite’s form of absolution. However, the Devotions for Communion section draws considerable

material from the Roman Missal. Woodman included the Missal’s preparatory and thanksgiving

Mass prayers—intended for the priest—to foster a proper disposition for Communion. To offset

misuse, he counterbalanced the Roman liturgical book’s efficacy: “They point out the proper line

of thought and subjects for reflection, and, if used carefully and meditatively, will be found of

great assistance. But no forms, however, perfect in themselves, would be good for us without

much care and effort on our own parts.”33

The next three sections, associated with annual religious practices, contain no Roman

material. Woodman situated Visits to the Blessed Sacrament within the Forty Hours Devotion.

The ,34 Mass of the Most Holy Sacrament, and a Eucharistic procession inaugurated

the Forty Hours Devotion, a continuous forty-hour period when Catholics visited and prayed

before the festively displayed or “exposed” species. A final Mass and procession marked the

devotion’s conclusion.

The Forty Hours’ history portrays the relationship between Confession and Communion.

Originating in sixteenth-century Italy as an occasion of repentance and reparation, the devotion

became primarily a “thanksgiving for the gift and mystery of the eucharist” by the early

33. Manual, 304-305. 34. For this time period, a Votive Mass was any Mass not on the liturgical calendar, including the Mass for the Dead and Marriage.

85

eighteenth century.35 In 1853, Philadelphia Bishop introduced the practice of

parishes annually holding the devotion throughout a diocese. The Second Plenary Council of

1866 approved and regulated, via the US Ceremonial, the Forty Hours’ Masses and

processions—but not the intervening forty hours devotional period.36 The Roman Ritual

eventually included the processionals’ concluding rite, made available in time for inclusion in the

Manual.37 Mitchell attests, “in popular prayer books and manuals of devotion the liturgical

aspects [the Masses and processions] of Forty Hours were often ignored in favor of prayers with

a strongly sentimental and individualistic orientation.”38 Woodman provided devotional prayers for the intervening period but omitted the inaugural and concluding Masses. Yet, he did not completely overlook public liturgical rites. He included the Roman Ritual’s Forty Hours processional prayers elsewhere in the Manual. Although difficult to follow, footnotes augmented chapter two’s Litany of the Saints, referring the user to disparate pages for the numerous processional prayers.

Devotions associated with Jesus’ passion—the Way of the Cross and the Seven Words upon the Cross—follow the Blessed Sacrament Eucharistic devotion. In the eighteenth century, the Holy See began regulating the Way of the Cross, a devotion based upon an ancient Christian practice recalling Christ’s walk to his crucifixion and further developed by Franciscan pilgrim guides in Jerusalem beginning in the thirteenth century. By the nineteenth century, most churches included pictures or reliefs of the Stations of the Cross, but the Holy See provided no

35. Mitchell, 318. 36. Ibid., 332-334. 37. Ibid., 202. A Roman Ritual published in 1870 did not incude The Forty Hours' processional unlike 1882 and 1884 publications. 38. Ibid., 333.

86

official texts for the service.39 Available for private devotion and weekly public services, in the late nineteenth-century United States the devotion became a popular annual exercise during Lent, especially .40 The Seven [Last] Words upon the Cross, a devotion with twelfth-

century origins and based upon seven phrases from three uttered by Christ from the

Cross, appeared in early Books of Hours.41 The devotion developed strong ties to Good Friday.42

The rosary, a popular Catholic devotion, appears out of place in a chapter of less frequently used prayers. Two factors explain its placement. In the Table of Contents, Woodman stressed the rosary section (and the following scapular section) includes the ritual forms for blessing a rosary (and scapular)—occasionally held events. He maintained the ordering in the

Roman Ritual, situating the rosary’s blessing alongside the scapular.

While many Catholics prayed the rosary, those initiated into devotional confraternities normally received the scapular’s blessing upon investiture. Originally a large cloth worn over a monk’s habit, evolved to smaller cloth pieces laid over a lay person’s shoulder to signify association with a religious order. In response to popular interest, numerous scapular confraternities developed in the nineteenth century; they enjoined their members to a routine of devotions and works of piety. Woodman included the widely-known and oldest scapular organization, the Carmelite’s Confraternity of .43 Instead of its

39. The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, s.v. "Stations of the Cross."; Herbert Thurston, The Stations of the Cross: An Account of Their History and Devotional Purpose (1914; repr., London: Burns & Oates, 1906), 159-162. 40. Chinnici and Dries, eds., Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community, 70. 41. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400-c.1580, 248-249. 42. Dictionary of Catholic Devotions, s.v. "Three Hours Devotion."; Donald Senior, "The and Related Topics," Bible Today 48, no. 6 (2010): 368. 43. New Catholic Encyclopedia, (2003), s.v. "scapulars."; Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "scapular." The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article stresses a scapular need be blessed only once.

87

devotions, he provided the confraternity’s initiation rite—with its scapular blessing. Initiation

into a confraternity provided members a new religious identity.

Chapter Three: Catholic Prayers for Life Events

Table 3 lists the Manual’s third chapter, providing prayers for major life events from

birth to death. Woodman structured the chapter using sacraments other than Eucharist and

Penance—Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony and Extreme Unction—and other liturgical rites

from the Roman Ritual. The Roman Missal, Breviary, and US Roman Ritual Supplement

complete the liturgical sources. The opening section, instruction on the sacraments in general,

and the Devotions for the Sick section contain no Roman text.

The four sacraments’ sections follow a similar pattern. Ample instructions introduce each

sacrament and a recipient’s devotional prayer precedes the ceremony.44 Devotional prayers of

thanksgiving and safe-keeping conclude each sacrament’s reception.45

The sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist, once a single rite of initiation, began to separate into three rites by the twelfth and thirteenth century. The Lateran Council’s

“Easter Duty” decree in 1215 delayed Eucharist’s first reception to the “age of discretion,” variously interpreted to mean the age of ten or above, prompting the need for preparation, especially Confession. The age for conferring Confirmation varied, dependent on local practices and/or the bishop’s availability to confer it. By the sixteenth century many locales stipulated a

minimum age of seven and interpreted the sacrament as preparation for life’s struggles instead of

initiation. The Manual’s introduction to Confirmation reflects this shift. The current Catholic

44. This prayer is, as expected, not provided for Infant Baptism. 45. The Mixed section concludes with thanksgiving/safekeeping prayers for all marriages.

88 practice, postponing Confirmation often until adolescence and implying a rite of passage, became widespread with the early twentieth-century reforms of Pius X—after the Manual’s compilation.46

The US Roman Ritual Supplement included rites particular to the United States. The

Holy See honored local customs by allowing regional ritual books or supplements. Situated in a religiously plural society, nineteenth-century US bishops created rites for the Reception of

Converts and Mixed Marriages. Aware of the US church’s immigrant character, the bishops

Table 3. Manual of Prayers: Prayers for life events Table of Contents: Manual of Prayers Roman (%)a Section Page M B R USb T The Sacraments in General 390 Initiation Holy Baptism 393 60 60 Reception of Converts 412 100 100 Confirmation 418 32c 32 Family Matrimony—The Ceremony 436 29 5 34 Nuptial Mass 440 10 100 Mixed Marriages 449 36 36 Churching of Women 454 87 87 Sickness/ Devotions for the Sick 459 Death Communion of the Sick 475 60 60 Extreme Unction 482 70 70 Visitation of the Sick 494 100 100 Last 501 49 49 Recommendation of a Soul 511 76 76 Burial of the Dead, Adults 541 18 66 16 100 Infants 587 27 60 87 Chapter three (25% of book) 9 14 39 4 66 aSee table 1, note a. bColumn contains rites from the US Roman Ritual Supplement. cRite of Confirmation from the Roman Pontifical.

46. Robert Cabie, "Christian Initiation," in The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort, trans. Matthew O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988), 63, 70, 74-77; Paul Turner, Ages of Initiation: The First Two Christian Millennia (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 28-44, 49- 51.

89

provided English and German translations for many supplemental rites. If one interprets the

Third Plenary Council decrees to charge Woodman with producing an English translation, then

he had no need to include non-English ones.

Of all the liturgical rites, Matrimony manifests the greatest variety of local customs, but

by the nineteenth century the US supplement provided little cultural variation. Kenneth

Stevenson, in his study of marriage rites, emphasizes the Council of Trent’s “liturgical

exception”—encouraging retention of rich local marriage rites. Through subsequent centuries,

locales adopted the simpler Roman Ritual marriage rite and added “what little they could.”47 The

US supplement’s minor additions—the “I, take thee” vow and the husband’s ring giving—reflect

pre-Tridentine English rites.48 Stevenson examines the “I, take thee” vow in Sarum, York, and

Hereford English fourteenth-century rituals and traces the phrase “to have and to hold” to earlier

Anglo-Saxon poems. He concludes “the English vow is a separate development, independent of

the French, a mature example of vernacular devotion, with its rhythms and didactic features.”49

Footnotes in the US Supplement accommodated French and German alternatives for the “I, take thee” vow and husband’s ring giving—as opposed to translations of the English vow—but

Woodman disregarded these ethnic choices.50

47. Kenneth Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 170, 176. 48. The US Supplement adds (1) “I, N.N. take thee N.N. for my lawful wife (husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part,” and (2) the husband’s giving of the ring: “With this ring I thee wed, and I plight unto thee my truth.” 49. Stevenson, 79-80, 82, 250. 50. The German vow (Ich N. nehme Dich N. mir zu meiner ehelichen Gattin und gelobe Dir an, die eheliche Treue zu bewahren, Dich nimmermehr zu verlassen, es sei in Kreuz, in Krankheit und allerlei Widerwärtigkeit, bis an mein letztes Ende. Dazu helfe mir Gott, die heilige Mutter Gottes und alle lieben Heiligen), differs from the previously noted English “I, take thee” vow, with its “to have and to hold” phrase, as seen in its English translation: I N. take thee N. as my wedded wife, and pledge my troth to thee, to never leave thy side, be this in times of hardship, in sickness, or in the face of any manner of difficulties, until the end of my days. So help me God, the Holy Mother of Christ and all the beloved saints.

90

Woodman’s inclusion of Churching of Women supported the US bishops’ promotion of a

once-prevalent practice. An ancient Christian rite, churching marked, around forty days after

giving birth, a woman’s transition from childbirth to resumption of social engagement. Scholars

agree “churching,” the English name for the Roman Ritual’s “The Blessing of Women after

Childbirth,” warrants more research. Generally, interpretations position churching either as a

purification or a thanksgiving rite. The Mosaic Law, similar to other ancient cultures, considered

postnatal women impure—childbirth involving birth, death, and especially blood—and required

ritual purification before returning to the temple. Keith Thomas concludes that the deeply rooted

belief of purification endured in Christian practice, despite official attempts to redefine the ritual

practice to one of thanksgiving for surviving childbirth.51 Some scholars point to the underlying

purification in Catholic ritual books and clergy practice while citing positive functions: protecting women from manual labor and providing a web of social support.52 In England, the

Catholic practice abated by the early nineteenth century, but Thurston claims, based upon Irish

bishops’ regulation attempts, churching remained prevalent in Ireland.53 In the United States, the

51. Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 38. 52. Walter von Arx, "The Churching of Women after Childbirth," Concilium 112 (1979): 67-69; David Cressy, Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 201-208, 229; See also, Joanne M. Pierce, "'Green Women' and Blood Pollution: Some Medieval Rituals for the Churching of Women after Childbirth," Studia Liturgica 29, no. 2 (1999); Joanne M. Pierce, "Marginal Bodies: Liturgical Structures of Pain and Deliverance in the Middle Ages," in Practicing Catholic: Ritual, Body, and Contestation in Catholic Faith, ed. Bruce T. Morrill, Joanna E. Ziegler, Susan Rodgers (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 59-67; Susan C. Karant-Nunn, "A Women's Rite: Churching and Reformation of Ritual," in Problems in the Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, ed. R. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997), 111-138. 53. Herbert Thurston, "The 'Churching' of Our Blessed Lady," The Month 153 (1929): 412-413.

91

practice declined by the mid-nineteenth century, prompting the 1866 Second Plenary Council’s

attempt to restore interest in the “neglected” rite.54

Woodman followed the Roman Ritual’s ordering—and intermingling—of rites related to sickness and death. Christians originally emphasized Communion’s reception or as preparation for an imminent death. This belief evolved through time, and Communion before death became Communion of the Sick, labeled as such by Woodman. The 1614 Roman Ritual

played a role in this alteration. “The manner in which the rites were organized had affected the

understanding of the doctrine involved.”55 The opposite transposition occurred with Anointing of

the Sick. Christians received an anointing when sick, but through time reserved this rite—

Extreme Unction—for death’s preparation.56 In addition, the Roman Ritual further blended the

rites for sickness and death by positioning Visitation of the Sick, focused almost exclusively on non-terminal illness, between two sections on assisting the dying: Extreme Unction and the Last

Indulgence.

Of the six rituals in the small US Roman Ritual Supplement, Woodman used three, as described above. He understandably excluded two rites for priests: blessing of baptismal water and the marriage ceremony’s exhortations. He included a different rite from the Roman Ritual for Recommendation of a Soul Departing, combining and significantly reducing two Roman

Ritual rites: Ordo Commendationis Animae (Recommendation of a Soul Departing) and In

Exspiratione (Prayers at the Moment of Death). He disregarded the US Supplement’s rite yet

54. Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi a die VII ad diem XXI Octobris A.D. MDCCCLXVI habiti, et a Sede Apostolica Recogniti: Acta et Decreta, 134 (art. 245). 55. Damien Sicard, "Christian Death," in The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort, trans. Matthew O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988), 227. 56. Aimé Georges Martimort, "Prayer for the Sick and Sacramental Anointing," in The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. Aimé Georges Martimort, trans. Matthew O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988), 131.

92 combined the two Roman Ritual rites and placed them under the single heading, Recommenda- tion of a Soul Departing.

In concluding chapter three, Woodman provided funeral rites for adults and children in full with minor omissions. Scholars describe the Roman Ritual’s extensive funeral rite as austere, restrained, and focused on rubrics.57 The funeral may include multiple processions, the chanting of Matins and , and Mass for the Dead. Accommodating late nineteenth-century funeral customs, he disregarded the Ritual’s opening requiring a liturgical procession with priest from church to the deceased’s home and return, then a concluding procession from grave back to church.58 He likewise omitted the infant burial rite’s introductory home processional. Prayers for various deceased, such as pope, priest, and parents, most extracted from Votive Mass Collects in the Roman Missal, conclude the infant burial section.

Chapter Four: Catholic Prayers for Reference

The book’s final chapter, summarized in table 4, collects hymns, sequences, prayers, and scriptural readings used throughout the church year, many for Sunday Mass but also for other church feasts, Vespers, and other rites. The foregoing texts derive from the Roman Missal or

Table 4. Manual of Prayers: Reference Chapter Table of Contents: Manual of Prayers Roman (%)a Section Page M B R US T Hymns and Sequences 599 15 74 89 Collects, and Gospels 665 100 100 Chapter four (30% of book) 80 17 97 aSee table 1, note a.

57. Sicard, 237-238; Richard Rutherford and Tony Barr, The Death of a Christian: The Order of Christian , Rev. ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 94-95, 102. 58. Rutherford and Barr, 108.

93

Breviary except for a small set of , Christmas, and Benediction hymns.

Summary of Roman Liturgical Book Usage

The preceding overview describes the substantial contribution of Roman liturgical books

to the Manual of Prayers. The table below summarizes overall percentages, showing 70 percent of its content emanates from the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual with minor additions from the Roman Pontifical, US Roman Ritual Supplement, and US Ceremonial.

Total Roman liturgical book usage (percent):

Missal 37% Breviary 16% Ritual/Pontifical 16% Approved US changes 1% Total 70%

Major English Sources

The small number of Roman liturgical books and their limited changes after the Council of Trent assist greatly in determining the Manual’s content from liturgical texts. On the other hand, the plethora of nineteenth-century Catholic devotional books—and US publishers’ free use of works prior to recognizing international copyright law in 1890—creates an enormous task identifying every other source, one beyond the chapter’s scope.59 Nevertheless, the Manual of

Prayers’ title suggests English prayer books greatly influenced its compilation.

59. Taves, 143; Fullam, 30.

94

The Garden of the Soul

The Garden of the Soul, Challoner’s popular 1741 English prayer book, was “edited out

of all recognition” in successive editions and unevenly incorporated in nineteenth-century

manual revival prayer books. The English bishops decreed its use as the basis for the 1886

English national Manual of Prayers. It remained popular into the twentieth century. From its

well-known contents, one easily recognizes its influence on the US Manual. Comparison to a

1755 Garden of the Soul, which Challoner edited and published fourteen years after the first

edition,60 reveals a significant portion to the Manual’s remainder and more than 5 percent of its total. Many of the Manual’s instructions, including the mini-catechism (Christian Faith and

Practice), the Manner of Serving Mass, instructions for hearing Mass and receiving Communion and Confirmation, and instructions for the sick, derive from Challoner’s original Garden. His classic provided numerous devotional prayers, including the English Benediction service and some prayers in Devotions for Mass, Devotions for Confession, Devotions for Communion, and

Devotions for the Sick.

The Manual’s version of Benediction, appearing in the 1833 US Ceremonial, conformed to the English practice introduced in Challoner’s original Garden. Scholars differentiate nineteenth- and twentieth-century English Benediction from continental varieties. Thurston identifies the first printing of this English form to Challoner’s Garden of the Soul, which favored the Benediction practices of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English clergy at Douay and St.

Omers. Compared to continental ones, the English service, brief and uniform, always began with

60. Richard Challoner, The Garden of the Soul; or, A Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instructions for Christians Who (Living in the World) Aspire to Devotion (London: n.p., 1755). Eighteenth Century Collections Online (CW122718914). Since The Garden of the Soul includes prayers from Roman liturgical books, this author marked Garden prayers in the Manual not already marked as Roman.

95

the hymn, O Salutaris, and rarely omitted the Litany of Loreto. Thurston claims the English questioned the legitimacy of other versions omitting these components and including many

others.61 Adrian Fortescue, a prominent English liturgist and Thurston’s contemporary, contrasts

the English Sunday service with Roman Benediction—a service for special occasions.62

Woodman provided the Sunday evening English variation of Benediction. The

Ceremonial granted much latitude in the prayers and hymns for Benediction. It refers to O

Salutaris as an optional hymn particular to certain customs and omitted mention of the Litany of

Loreto, instead allowing “hymns and as are approved by the Church, or by ancient usage.”63 Woodman filled in the options and provided the simple English Benediction service—

accepting O Salutaris as the opening hymn and providing a link to Benediction’s “frequently sung” Litany of Loreto.

The English influence did not conclude with the eighteenth-century Garden. An 1872 edition, published by Washbourne in London, provides one example. From its many additions to

Challoner’s original, the US Manual of Prayers includes its Christian Faith and Practice updates,

describing Vatican I’s doctrine on , prayers appended to the Litany of Loreto,

and various Devotions for Mass and for the Sick, to name a few.64

61. Thurston, "Our English Benediction Service."; Thurston deduced his conclusions accessing a 1793 Garden and surmised it represented earlier versions. This author verified his conclusions using the following 1751 Challoner-edited Garden: Richard Challoner, The Garden of the Soul; or, A Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instructions for Christians Who (Living in the World) Aspire to Devotion., 6th Corrected ed. (London: T. Meighan, 1751). Eighteenth Century Collections Online (CB3332892477). 62. Adrian Fortescue, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, 2nd ed. (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1920), xiv. 63. Ceremonial for the Use of the Catholic Churches in the United States of America, 80-81. 64. The Garden of the Soul: A Manual of Spiritual Exercises, In Which are Included Many Devotions of Recent Practice, and Approved Of By The Church (London: R. Washbourne, 1872). Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/gardensoulorama00chalgoog).

96

The Golden Manual

Not as popular as The Garden of the Soul, one suspects The Golden Manual, with its lower circulation in England and the United States in the middle to late nineteenth century, attracted less influence. However, many respected this English manual. Heimann excludes the book from her list of five best-selling prayer books in post-1850 England. She places the 1850

Golden Manual, published by London’s Burns & Lambert, in a secondary class of “reissues of

well-established works.”65 In the United States, Sadlier published a much-enlarged US edition in

1851, which P.J. Kenedy updated in 1902. The book ranks last—yet a respectable ninth—in

Taves’s list of 1840-80 US best-sellers.66 Still known in 1911, Thurston acknowledged the title,

The Golden Manual, may date from the seventeenth century.67 Lack of endorsement did not

cause its post-1850 lack of popularity. John Henry Newman short-listed The Golden Manual as

one of a few orthodox books representing “English style” Marian devotion. “These are the books

to which Anglicans ought to appeal who would be fair to us in this matter. I do not observe

anything in them which goes beyond the teaching of the fathers, except so far as devotion goes

beyond doctrine."68 In 1862, the US publisher Piet & Co. acknowledged its Mission-Book derived

65. Heimann, Catholic Devotion in Victorian England, 71. Heimann derives her best-selling list using those prayer books "which appear most frequently in the British, Cambridge University, and Bodleian ."; The Golden Manual: Being a Guide to Catholic Devotion, Public and Private, Compiled from Approved Sources (London: Burns and Lambert, 1850). 66. Taves, 144. Taves obtains her best-seller list based upon number of known reprints. 67. Catholic Encyclopedia, (1911), s.v. "prayer-books."; Despite Heimann and Thurston claims, Blom's bibliography of eighteenth-century English Catholic books does not include a Golden Manual, see F. Blom, J. Blom, F. Dorsten, G. Scott, English Catholic Books, 1701-1800: A Bibliography (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1996). 68. John Henry Newman, "A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on His Recent Eirenicon," Catholic World, April 1866, 84.

97

baptismal and confirmation instructions from The Golden Manual cited as an “approved source.”69

Woodman’s Manual strikingly resembles the 1850 Golden Manual. The English prayer

book contains similar content from Roman books. More telling, whole portions of the Manual of

Prayers duplicated sections of The Golden Manual as if produced from the same set of printer

plates and reproduced minor details such as footnotes verbatim. The Golden Manual supplied

much of the Manual of Prayers’ instructional text.

The semblance between The Golden Manual and The Manual of Prayers becomes more

apparent when viewing the layout of certain pages. The latter’s Abridgement of Christian

Doctrine, with its distinctive layout of horizontal and vertical text, mirrors The Golden Manual’s

similarly titled section. The Manual’s Ordinary of the Mass literally shares many of the same

English rubrics, sundry notes, footnotes, and alternative prayers with The Golden Manual.70 The complicated layout of the Forty Hours’ Devotion Litany, integrated into the Litany of the Saints via footnotes, is identical.

Table 5 introduces the Manual of Prayers’ sections containing instructions, either as simple introductions or detailed instructions throughout—or both. Instructions may explain a rite’s rubrics, meaning, or history. Moreover, they may include directions to foster better engagement for the reader. Not derived from Roman sources, instructions comprise 9 percent of the Manual of Prayers.

69. The Mission-Book of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, 5. 70. Both manuals include the same alternative prayers that “may be read” for the , Collect, , Gradual, Gospel, , Secreta, Communion, and Post-communion.

98

Most of the Manual of Prayers’ instructions derive from English prayer books, attesting to The Golden Manual’s role as a source for instructional material, as acknowledged in the 1862

Table 5. Manual of Prayers: Instructions Chapter Manual of Prayers sectiona GM % (GOS %)b One Days of Obligation and Devotionc Abridgment of Christian Doctrine 100 Christian Faith and Practice 81 (68) Devotions for Massd 53 (46) Vespers Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament Two The Seven Penitential Psalms 100 Devotions for Confessione 35 Devotions for Communionf 41 (35) Visits to the Blessed Sacrament 100 Way of the Cross Rosary (with form of Blessing) 88 Scapular (with form of Blessing) Three The Sacraments in General [100]i Holy Baptismg 100 Confirmation 100 (58) Matrimony—The Ceremony [100]46j Devotions for the Sickh 36 (31) Communion of the Sick 57 Extreme Unction 100 Last Indulgence 100 Instructions (9% of book) 59 (24) aThe section in the Manual’s Table of Contents. Many instructions have no separate heading. Different or multiple headings are noted below. bExcept where noted [], the percentage of the section’s instructions contained in the 1850 Golden Manual (GM) and, in parenthesis, from the 1755 Garden of Soul (GOS), because the GM also used those instructions. cOn Fasting and Abstinence. dWhat the Mass Is, and For What End it is to be Offered, Of the Ceremony of the Mass, and On the Manner of Hearing Mass. eOn the Sacrament of Penance, Considerations to Excite Confession, Examination of Conscience, Directions for Confession, and After Confession. fInstructions for Holy Communion and Direction of Intention. gExplanation of the Ceremonies. hRules for a Sick Person. iContained in the 1843 St. Vincent’s Manual. jContained in Woodman’s 1886 The Bridal Wreath.

99

US Mission-Book. Almost 60 percent of Woodman’s instructions exist in the 1850 English prayer book. Furthermore, table 5 shows some of The Golden Manual’s instructions are traceable

to Challoner’s Garden. For instance, The Golden Manual supplied all the Manual’s confirmation

instructions, but over half of those (58 percent) originate from The Garden of the Soul.

Kehoe and the CPS insured the Manual of Prayers was rooted in the British Isles’

heritage of devotional prayer books. In the 1860s, the society established business arrangements

with European publishing houses, especially those in Ireland and England. When Kehoe became

majority owner in 1883, CPS made arrangements with several Irish and English companies, but

especially promoted exclusive agreements with Burns & Oates, the principal Catholic publisher

in England known for its affiliation with John Henry Newman. Similarly registered “telegraphic

addresses,” a telegram identifier akin to contemporary email or web addresses, indicate their

close business association: “Idolqueen” for CPS (figure 3) and “Idolqueen, London” for Burns &

Oates.71

Kehoe’s alliances provided CPS with legitimate source material. His aggressive

leadership of the failed 1882 American Catholic Book Publishers Association, a predecessor to

Figure 3. CPS stationary advertising British Isle business affiliations.

71. Michael Trappes-Lomax, ed. Early Chapters in the History of Burns & Oates (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1949), 30.

100

the Catholic Press Association of the United States and Canada, included fighting book pirating,

suggesting he licensed material from contractually available sources.72 Burns & Oates owned the

1850 Golden Manual copyright, and the London company’s history states Kehoe and CPS “had

the distinction of never having ‘pirated’ a book.”73

The English Ritual

The Manual and the English Ritual share two noteworthy similarities. After the Council

of Trent, English locales maintained local rituals as the Holy See allowed. England possessed a

single ritual book, Challoner’s 1759 Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta, which remained in use

into the 1920s.74 An 1856 publication of the national book contains, as expected, the marriage

rite “to have and to hold” English vow.75 The Ordo also contains the Te Deum and the

versicle/response Benedictus Es, as a single liturgical unit, titled pro Gratiarum Actione

(Thanksgiving Prayers).76 The Manual’s “The Te Deum, etc.” section contains the same

liturgical unit, separately attributed above by the author to Roman sources; The Te Deum to the

Roman Breviary’s Sunday Matins and the Benedicutus Es to the Roman Ritual’s prayers for thanksgiving processions. Their pairing in the Manual, under the heading “Special Prayers,” closely resembles the English Ritual’s Thanksgiving Prayers.

72. Fullam, 29-31, 64, 70-71. 73. Trappes-Lomax, ed., 28. 74. Crichton, 270. 75. Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta, Et Alia Quaedam Officia Ecclesiastica Rite Peragendi in Missione Anglicana; Ex Rituali Romano (Derby: T. Richardson and Sons, 1856), 180-181. 76. Ibid., 236-237.

101

US Sources

The US Roman Ritual Supplement and Ceremonial did not exhaust the Manual’s local

sources. Woodman honored the established “A Prayer for the Church, The Civil Authorities,

etc.,” composed by the US’s first bishop, Baltimore Archbishop John Carroll, with a place of

dignity. The 1791 National Synod’s fifth session decreed the prayer’s recitation before the

Sunday . John Gilmary Shea noted it “was for many years thus recited throughout this

country,”77 indicating a bygone practice in 1888, the time-frame of the Manual’s compilation, but

the prayer remained well known during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century.78 Its inclusion in the Manual as a daily prayer reflects its familiarity among US Catholics.

The US Douay-Rheims

Woodman used a prominent US archbishop’s once promising and scholarly English translation of the Bible. The work resulted from mid-nineteenth century demand for and criticism of Catholic vernacular , which placed the US Catholic bishops at the crossroads of Bible translations.

The earliest US Catholic Bibles, published by Philadelphian Mathew Carey in 1790, achieved minimal circulation. In 1810, the US bishops issued its first Bible-related decree, explaining the Catholic subordination of bible-as-book. The decree prescribed scriptural passages from the Douay-Rheims Bible for books of devotion. As the century progressed, the

Catholic Bible market increased in response to anti-Catholicism and Protestants evangelizing

77. John Gilmary Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, Bishop and First Archbishop of Baltimore: Embracing the History of the Catholic Church in the United States. 1763-1815 (New York: J. G. Shea, 1888), 397. 78. Peter Guilday, The Life and Times of John Carroll, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1735-1815 (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1922), 432.

102

new waves of Catholic immigrants. In 1829, the First Provincial Council endorsed the Douay-

Rheims Bible, and the Holy See insisted upon its publication in an annotated version to clarify

Catholic doctrine.79 Advances in literacy and concessions gained from public schools further

increased demand for Catholic Bibles. In 1843, the Philadelphia school board allowed Catholic

Bibles for Catholic students, as Bishop Francis Patrick Kenrick requested.80

The bishops’ conundrum stemmed from the new need for Catholic Bibles coupled with

the Holy See’s request for Douay-Rheims’ annotations and mid-nineteenth century advances in

biblical criticism and philology, which judged Catholic vernacular translations outdated. Paul

Gutjahr describes the US Catholic bishops’ two approaches. In 1842, ignoring academic

advances, New York Bishop and the publisher, Sadlier, took the practical and most

expeditious approach, publishing the same version as Carey: Challoner’s Douay-Rheims’

revisions. The prolific author of The Garden of the Soul included notes in his five editions

explaining Catholic doctrine for an eighteenth-century English Catholic community. Philadelphia

Bishop Kenrick, considered the most accomplished scholar and theologian among US bishops,

undertook the challenging and time-consuming task to create a new English translation, based

upon Challoner with annotations situating “scripture in the context of nineteenth-century

developments in both scriptural criticism and science.”81 Kenrick balanced openness to scholarly

advances with respect for traditional approaches. He based his work on the authoritative ,

St. Jerome’s fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, and maintained lineage with

79. Pius VIII’s encyclical , issued in May 1829, denounced vernacular translations of the Bible, except those with commentary from the approved by the Holy See. 80. Gerald P. Fogarty, "American Catholic Translations of the Bible," in The Bible and Bibles in America, ed. Ernest S. Frerichs (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 118-121; Paul C. Gutjahr, An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999), 116, 126, 136. 81. Fogarty, "American Catholic Translations of the Bible," 125.

103

Challoner’s Vulgate-based, Douay-Rheims version. The Council of Trent did not require the

Vulgate text as basis of vernacular translations, but the practice was respected. He produced his

translation while serving as bishop of Philadelphia and archbishop of Baltimore. In six scholarly volumes with copious notes and maps published from 1849 to 1862, he explained Catholic doctrines, addressed claims Catholic Bibles were outmoded, and used notes to inform the reader of the original Greek or Hebrew. When completed, he combined the two New Testament volumes into a revised single volume in 1862. His sudden death in 1863 at the age of sixty-six prevented additional releases.82

Many respected Kenrick’s translation. Orestes Brownson thought it fitting for its time,

and English bishops recommended it as basis for John Henry Newman’s project to create a

translation for all English-speaking countries. The province of Baltimore approved it in 1858 and

submitted it to the Holy See for approval. Nevertheless, Kenrick’s translation, for all intents and

purposes the “US Douay-Rheims,” never became the official US English Bible translation. In

1866, a Second Plenary Council committee recommended its adoption as such, but the bishops

rejected the proposal. In 1884, at the Third Plenary Council’s first private session, the bishops

again discussed prescribing an English Bible. Many praised Kenrick’s translation and

recommended printing a more accessible edition. But they again hesitated to endorse a particular

English Bible, and, instead, in their pastoral letter, recommended three annotated Douay-Rheims

editions. “Among other versions, we recommend the Douay, which is venerable as used by our

forefathers for three centuries, which was suitably annotated by the learned Bishop Challoner, by

82. Gutjahr, 127-136; Fogarty, "American Catholic Translations of the Bible," 124-126.

104

Canon Haydock, and especially by the late Archbishop Kenrick.”83 As Gerald Fogarty concludes,

Kenrick’s project was regarded as too ambitious, and his version “was virtually forgotten in

American Catholic circles.” Morevover, the anti-Modernist climate then stirring in the 1890s

prevented further endeavors like Kenrick’s.84 Such an environment—and ongoing developments

in —also hindered reconsideration of his work, and the bishops never sponsored

publication of an accessible Kenrick edition.85

Woodman found a place for Kenrick’s ill-fated Bible and honored bishops’ requests to

make it available—but not without questions. Much of the Manual of Prayers’ scripture derives

from Kenrick’s translation including but not limited to the reference chapter’s Epistles and

Gospels, scriptural references in instructions, Psalms, and Mass . The episcopal approval of Kenrick’s work became a matter of interpretation and surfaced at the later stages of the

Manual’s review and first printing. In reply to Bishop Thomas Grace’s mediation of western bishops’ criticism, Woodman described the translation as a “chosen standard,” and “it would have saved a vast deal of philological discussion, if some of the Rt. Revd critics had only referred to Abp. Kenrick’s translation.”86 Grace brought the issue up with Gibbons after the

Manual’s release:

May I be allowed to make a remark with reference to the new Manual of Prayers? It regards the substitution in the prayer book of Abp. Kenrick's version of the Gospels & Epistles and other parts of the New and Old Testaments for the received Rheimish and Douay versions. As you are aware there are many variations in Kenrick's version from

83. "Pastoral Letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States," in The Memorial Volume: A History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, November 9 - December 7, 1884 (Baltimore: Baltimore Publishing Co., 1885), 21. 84. Fogarty, "American Catholic Translations of the Bible," 127. 85. Ibid., 121-123, 126-127; Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV, lxii- lxiii. 86. Woodman to Gibbons, October 2, 1888, 85E4, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

105

the Vulgate. Was it not in same ground like this that Lasserre's New Testament translation [in France] was recently condemned in Rome?87

Gibbons defended Woodman’s use of Kenrick, identifying the translation as a Douay edition and

stressing its adoption by the Baltimore archdiocese, but he did not elevate it to a US standard:

“You will observe that the text of Archbishop Kenrick though not formally adopted [by the Third

Plenary Council] was strongly recommended & it was even suggested that a new edition

involving no change of words but a smaller compact [one] should be issued for general use.”88

The choice of English scripture for the Manual suggests Gibbons held Kenrick’s work— the US Douay-Rheims—in high esteem. Augustine Hewit, Woodman’s mentor, Paulist superior general in 1888, and Gibbons’s initial candidate for compiler, participated in the work, assisting

Kenrick in translating the in the early 1850s.89 Given the Manual’s

significant scriptural content, Woodman considered it a proper medium to disseminate the US

translation. Scripture supplied 28 percent of the prayer book’s content.

St. Vincent’s Manual

The Manual of Prayers’ “Instruction on the Sacraments in General” can be found in the

1843 St. Vincent’s Manual of the US Society of St. Sulpice (Sulpicians). Welcomed by Bishop

John Carroll in 1791, the Paris-based society of diocesan priests opened the nation’s first

Catholic seminary in Baltimore. Their spirituality reflected aspects of the Garden-of-the-Soul

English Catholics. The appointment of Louis Regis Deluol as the Sulpician’s third US superior in 1829 increased their engagement with administrative and pastoral work outside the seminary.

87. Grace to Gibbons, September 11, 1889, 1989.4, Box 2, 13.B.2.2, Bishop Grace Collection, AASPM. 88. Gibbons to Grace, September 14, 1889, 1989.4, Box 2, 13.B.2.2, Bishop Grace Collection, AASPM. 89. Fogarty, "American Catholic Translations of the Bible," 122.

106

The practical, gregarious, and patriotic Deluol adopted US customs and cultivated friendships

with many of Baltimore’s Catholic families. He assisted at the seven provincial councils and

served as the archbishop of Baltimore’s vicar general and superior of the Sisters of Charity of St.

Joseph, founded by Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, earning him the title as “the most active

Sulpician in the United States.”90

As superior for Seton’s religious order, Deluol created or oversaw the compilation of the

1843 St. Vincent’s Manual for the sisters—a US prayer book warranting more research.91 He

assigned its copyright to John Murphy, who published a second edition in 1848, adapting the

prayer book for the Catholic general public.92 The book maintains a strong lineage to the Garden

of the Soul and its meditative spirituality. Kenrick, as archbishop of Baltimore, oversaw

subsequent revisions, which advertised endorsement by several US bishops. Consistent with the

Catholic Revival trend, its size grew significantly throughout the later part of the nineteenth

century.93 Its strong US lineage with the Sulpicians, “old” English spirituality, and episcopal

oversight, all centered in Baltimore, positions the prayer book as a US predecessor to the Manual

of Prayers.

90. Christopher J. Kauffman, Tradition and Transformation in Catholic Culture: The Priests of Saint Sulpice in the United States from 1791 to the Present (New York: Macmillan, 1988), 109-111, 119-120 (quote 119). 91. St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, for the Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America (Baltimore: Metropolitan Press, 1843). 92. Agreement between Louis Regis Deluol and John Murphy, St. Vincent's Manual, August 21, 1847, Correspondence of Rev. Louis Regis Deluol, Record Group 7-1-4, APSL; St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, Originally Prepared for Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1848). 93. The 1843 and 1848 editions contained 572 and 787 pages, respectively. By 1887, the size had grown to 966 pages. Moreover, John Murphy maintained its copyright, updating it in 1887. St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, Originally Prepared for Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1887).

107

The Bridal Wreath

The Manual’s instructions and rites for Matrimony appear in Woodman’s publication of

The Bridal Wreath.94 CPS published the small 108-page booklet in 1886, the year of the

Manual’s initial draft. While its preface bears a January 1886 date, months before Gibbons initiated the prayer book’s compilation, Woodman discussed placement of its woodcuts in

October, indicating work on the booklet coincided with the Manual’s first phase of development.95

Woodman integrated the Latin and English translation of the Roman Ritual’s Matrimony

rite and the Roman Missal’s Mass for the Bride and Groom. Aiming “to make our venerable and

beautiful Marriage Ceremony more widely known, and more generally observed,”96 he augmented the liturgical text with instructions and devotional prayers for use before and after the ceremony. He intended the booklet as a souvenir—its frontispiece included an ornate marriage certificate for customization.

The Bridal Wreath’s instructions on Matrimony expand on those of The Golden Manual,

modifications presumably made by Woodman. He emphasized the sanctity of marriage, clarified

the agreements a non-Catholic spouse must make, and stressed the importance of a morning

Nuptial Mass. From this larger introduction, he extracted the Manual’s instruction. The Bridal

94. Priest of the Congregation of St. Paul, The Bridal Wreath: Containing the Entire Ritual of the Catholic Church for the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony, in Latin and English (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1886). Despite the author's anonymity on the title page, Woodman signed its preface "C.E.W." and claimed authorship when receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1915; Honorary Degree Data File, Woodman, Clarence E., 1915, 130/09, Public Relations and Information (DIS), UNDA. 95. Woodman to Kehoe, October 1, 1886, Kehoe - Hammond Correspondence: 1858-1890, ACUA. The book bears an 1886 copyright on its title page, but no record exists at the Library of Congress for its registration. 96. Priest of the Congregation of St. Paul, 16.

108

Wreath’s preface, citing then recent church documents including the Third Plenary Council of

Baltimore, communicated the importance of the Nuptial Mass and the Nuptial Blessing.

Conclusion

The Manual of Prayers contained an overwhelming amount of material—more than 70 percent—from Roman liturgical books. Woodman thereby fulfilled the Third Plenary Council’s charge to create a national prayer book containing “the beauties of the sacred liturgy.” With substantial content directing its users to the liturgy, the book’s first draft was aptly titled, A

Liturgical Prayer Book for the Use of the Catholic Laity of the United States.

Though Woodman removed “liturgical” from its title, renaming the book to the popular prayer book genre of its day, the Manual of Prayers does not exemplify a Catholic Revival prayer book augmented with some officially-sanctioned prayers. The Holy See influenced many middle to late nineteenth-century Catholic devotional books through publication of the

Raccolta—an authorized anthology of prayers granting papal indulgences. The Raccolta provided publishers with a source containing approved prayers to enlarge devotional books and thereby advertise their official endorsement. However, these prayer books were devotional with an official authorization. The Manual of Prayers is a prayer book sanctioned by a bishops’ national council with a liturgical core.

Heimann’s conclusions about the insular nature of the nineteenth-century Catholic

Revival, with its surge of devotions, relate to the Manual of Prayers. She states the revival “was in practice largely confined to persuading the members of pre-existing Catholic communities to

109

change their habits of devotion and worship.”97 It aimed not to evangelize new members but to

re-evangelize Catholics. The Manual of Prayers attempted to alter the worship habits of US

Catholics, not by promoting devotions and confraternities, but by providing a broader offering of the official liturgical rites, in the vernacular, and with instructions. The Manual encouraged

Catholics to know more about the liturgy and deepen their participation.

Heimann revises the accepted interpretations focusing on the Holy See’s initiative and authority during the Catholic Revival at the expense of local influence. Many devotions assumed to be Roman “often turn out, upon closer inspection … to have been precisely those devotions which had long been prized by the national community.”98 The Manual of Prayers, along with its

preponderance of Roman liturgical material, held forth classical devotions long-established in

English—and through time—Irish Catholic communities. The Manual also featured US contributions, including Kenrick’s Bible translation, an early and unique scholarly work from the

US episcopacy.

The Manual’s liturgical-devotional composition attempted to acquaint its Catholic readers with the church’s official liturgical prayers while supplying standard devotional fare. Its title and supplemental devotions served a Catholic readership utilizing the well-known manual

genre. The most established and respected devotions augmented the liturgical core. The Manual of Prayers, a late variant of the manual genre, ushered in a new genre— officially sanctioned

liturgical prayer books in the vernacular, exemplified by and missalettes. It served as a

bridge from the Catholic Revival to the twentieth-century liturgical movement.

97. Heimann, "Catholic Revivalism in Worship and Devotion," 77. 98. Ibid., 83.

CHAPTER THREE

Promulgation

After a lengthy gestation, the US bishops published a national prayer book. Then

attention turned to its dissemination. The book’s novelty, containing mostly liturgical prayer

forms for the laity and decreed by a national bishops’ council, required creative marketing to

develop a customer base. The late nineteenth-century process of supplying and selling books

nationwide complicated the task. While nineteenth-century industrialization significantly

advanced book development and production, the industry’s distribution system lagged, requiring

“that each work be marketed singly, copy by copy, in multiple locations.”1

The difficulties of the Manual’s dissemination exceeded those for the Baltimore

Catechism. An established genre intended for children, the catechism sold in bulk orders to

schools, greatly assisting its distribution. The catechism’s circulation grew with an expanding

Catholic educational system, despite competition and criticism of the work. The Manual was

distributed primarily through retail booksellers or catalogs, selling directly to individual Catholic

adults.

To insure the Manual’s wide distribution and use, a vigorous promotional effort was

needed. The bishops as its sponsor might have been expected to lead such an effort. But unfortunately for the Manual, the Catholic Publication Society (CPS) collapsed given the book

market’s vicissitudes, and the bishops in the 1890s divided on numerous issues, diverting their

collective attention to foster an innovative prayer book. In addition, the prayer book market, then

1. Michael Winship, "The National Book Trade System: Distribution and the Trade," in The Industrial Book, 1840-1880, ed. Scott E. Casper, Jeffrey D. Groves, Stephen W. Nissenbaum, Michael Winship (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 118. 110 111

well supplied with a multitude of competing books, continued to evolve. By century’s end, Pope

Leo XIII’s , Officiorum ac Munerum, affected translations of Roman

liturgical books and enabled widespread dissemination of the simpler vernacular missal in the

early twentieth century, increasing the number of liturgically-based prayer books.

The relationship of the Manual’s publication history to catechesis proceeds from the

bishops’ essential role as teachers of the Christian faith. From Jesus’s command to the apostles to

“Go, therefore, and make disciples … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”

(Mt 28: 19-20), to the nineteenth-century US bishops’ national catechism and prayer book, the

Church understands that “in its roots and branches [catechesis is] a pastoral activity for which the

episcopate is primarily responsible.”2 That responsibility includes proper administration of catechetical assets: “Your principal role will be to bring about and maintain in your Churches a real passion for catechesis, a passion embodied in a pertinent and effective organization, putting into operation the necessary personnel, means and equipment, and also financial resources.”3 The

Manual’s publication history, fraught with human foibles and frailties, provides an example of

bishops’ collective attempts at teaching endeavors through national publishing before the creation of their own national organization.

2. Berard L. Marthaler, Catechetics in Context: Notes and Commentary on the General Catechetical Directory Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1973), 3; See also Michael Donnellan, "Bishops and Uniformity in Religious Education: Vatican I to Vatican II," in Sourcebook for Modern Catechetics, ed. Michael Warren (Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press, 1983), 234-235; Denis E. Hurley, "The Bishop's Role in the Catechetical Renewal," in Teaching all Nations: A Symposium on Modern Catechetics, ed. Johannes Hofinger, trans. Clifford Howell (New York: Herder and Herder, 1961), 341-347. 3. Catechesi Tradendae, 63.3 in The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations of John Paul II, 109.

112

The Manual’s Launch

The Manual’s post-production history begins with the business agreement between CPS and other publishers and then proceeds with initial marketing, including the book’s announcement, endorsements, favorable reviews, and advertisements.

The Business Agreement

CPS contracted with other publishers for the Baltimore Catechism and the prayer book.

While the agreements shared some similarities, two distribution models resulted in different pricing structures.

Chapter one introduced the Baltimore Catechism’s business arrangement. CPS produced the master plates, and a copyright insured uniformity and payment of royalties. In a circular,

Kehoe announced the smaller or abridged catechism, later called “no. 1,” and summarized the business arrangement for it and the larger “no. 2:”

No duplicate plates to be made; $2.50 per 100 copies for the large Catechism; $1.50 per 100 copies for the small Catechism; 20 percent off to the trade on all copies under 5,000—on 5,000 copies, or over, publishers can make their own terms; and each publisher to pay to the ordinary of his diocese 5 cents per 100 copies on the large Catechism and 3 cents per 100 on the small Catechism, returns to be made January and July of each year. It is also the express wish and command of the compilers of the Catechism that nothing be added to it—neither prayers at Mass, hymns, or any other matter—without the express permission of the bishop of the diocese in which it is published. The Catechism is to be used as a Catechism, and not to be attached to a prayer-book, hymn-book, or any other book.4

4. Kehoe to Catholic Publishers, September 11, 1885, 2/03, Kehoe Papers (CKEH), AUND.

113

In addition, the circular stipulated the smaller catechism’s entry fee. Publishers paid $35.005 for

its plates, which included a five-dollar assessment for lawyer’s fees to protect the larger

catechism’s copyright. The circular did not specify the latter’s entry fees. While not a legal

contract, one may surmise the circular’s validity given its intended audience. Kehoe signed agreements with several primary publishers, those capable of publishing from plates and executing agreements with distributors or booksellers, referred to as “the trade.”6 The business

agreement provided wholesale prices for outside the trade because booksellers primarily sold the

catechism in bulk. For a school buying less than 5,000 copies, the larger catechism—a seventy-

five page booklet—cost 2.5 cents per copy.7 Signees further agreed to the book’s volume pricing,

episcopal royalties, and textual uniformity.

The prayer book’s pricing differed significantly. Kehoe introduced a fee structure based

on the number of publishers enlisted. He provided prices for up to four publishers, not counting

CPS. Like the catechism, Kehoe stipulated primary publishers “are not to make duplicates of these plates or to allow any one else to do so: that you shall not loan the plates to any other publisher.”8

The Baltimore Catechism’s initial business concerns related to its copyright. For the

Manual of Prayers, the cost of its plates dominated. Kehoe’s entry fee for the book’s plates

ranged from $2,700 for one publisher to $1,525 for four.9 Kehoe, aware the fees would be an

issue, warned Gibbons: “There may be complaints as to the price. I cannot do any better without

5. USD (2013) 909.35. To comprehend worth, a comparable 2013 estimated value, based upon a formula defined by the US Department of Labor, footnotes late-nineteenth-century monetary values (www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800). 6. Some publishers, in lieu of printing, acted as distributors, reselling their competitor’s books. 7. USD (2013) 0.65. 8. Kehoe to Gibbons, June 4, 1889, 86B3, Gibbons Papers, AAB. 9. USD (2013) 70,150 and 39,622.

114

losing money.” The uncertain financial status of CPS notwithstanding, Kehoe blamed the book’s

production costs: “Besides the cost of and electrotyping, we have paid large sums of

money for other expenses, such as , cancelling matter, [and] postage.” In addition, the agreement set the Manual’s retail price for “plainly-bound copies” to $1.25.10

One publisher joined CPS in producing the Manual of Prayers: The John Murphy

Company of Baltimore, publisher of many church documents, including the Third Plenary

Council decrees and Gibbons’s popular The Faith of Our Fathers. Murphy paid $2,700, agreed

to the $1.25 retail price “for plainly-bound copies,” and six-cent royalty for his bishop, Gibbons.

The agreement defined trade discounts (40-50 percent) and acceptable corrections (those

proffered “by proper authorities” and provided to CPS). Of most significance, CPS agreed “not

to sell a set of plates to any other publisher without the consent” of Murphy.11 The CPS/Murphy

contract forged a two-publisher production system, accommodating distributors and booksellers,

which marketed the Manual of Prayers directly to customers via retail stores and catalogs.

The Announcement

Many middle-to-late nineteenth-century book publishers produced “trade lists,” catalogs

devoted to their market segment. Described as “house organs,” the publications announced new books from the publisher and its competitors.12 CPS’s trade list, Catholic Book Talk, compiled

information about the Catholic book trade.

The Manual’s announcement in Catholic Book Talk highlighted its quality and authority.

Kehoe advertised first-of-its-kind printing endeavors. CPS purchased a print type (font)

10. Kehoe to Gibbons, June 4, 1889, 86B3, Gibbons Papers, AAB. 11. Appendix Two provides the complete business agreement for the Manual of Prayers. 12. Winship, 119.

115

explicitly for the book, produced unique initials for opening chapters, and illustrated the calendar in a way “never before attempted in this country.” Kehoe emphasized the book’s credentials,

commissioned by the Third Plenary Council, conforming to the “Catholic Ritual,” and describing the book’s intended customers as every Catholic family.13

In addition to trade lists, late nineteenth-century publishers communicated to booksellers

in general book trade publications, namely, the American Bookseller and Publishers Weekly. By

1880, the latter emerged as the trade’s primary means of communication, which CPS and

Murphy selected to announce the Manual’s availability, bindings, and retail prices.14

Bishops’ Endorsements

Kehoe obtained endorsements from many US bishops.15 After the first press run in early

July 1889, he sent complimentary copies to individual bishops and published twenty-seven

testimonials in Catholic Book Talk, some merely short congratulatory responses.16 Two bishops

mentioned their participation in the book’s review. Wilmington Bishop Alfred Curtis when

reviewing it thoroughly “long ago” had concerns about its length. But the published version’s

fine appearance allayed his concerns as he saw its “convenient size.” Buffalo Bishop Stephen

Ryan acknowledged he “partially examined it in the course of publication, I must confess that I

am more than pleased with it in the form and style in which you have brought it out.”

13. Catholic Book Talk, "The New Prayer-Book," Talk about Recent Publications, July 1889, 321, 323. 14. Winship, 119, 121-122; Publishers Weekly, Weekly Record of New Publications, August 17, 1889, 188-189; subsequently, the Manual appeared in Publishers Weekly annual catalog: The Annual American Catalogue: 1889 (New York: Publishers Weekly, 1890), 32. 15. The subsequent discussion derives from: Catholic Book Talk, "Testimonials from Archbishops and Bishops," February 1890, 10-14. Kehoe's bishops' testimonials, not available for the July 1889 announcement, appeared in the next three Catholic Book Talks, culiminating in this February 1890 edition. 16. A complete transcription of the bishops’ testimonials appears in Appendix Three.

116

Kehoe’s prayer book impressed the bishops. Many used the scholastic categories, form and matter, in their compliments. In addition to its convenient size, many described its form as beautiful, handsome, or elegant. Known for producing quality books, Kehoe certainly appreciated the praise of Wheeling Bishop John Kain. “The typographical work is both substantial and elegant—a proof of the enterprise and progressive spirit of your house,” and Leo

Haid, OSB, vicar apostolic of North Carolina, “Your part of the labor will meet the approval of all who appreciate taste and art in book-making.”

As for the Manual’s contents, Covington Bishop Camillus Maes, succinctly said, “The make-up … is in every way worthy of its contents.” Most described the matter as complete and cited the orthodoxy of its main sources: the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual. Maes specifically highlighted the “complete and authoritative translation of the Latin text of the sublime prayers used by the Church in the administration of the Sacraments, the … Mass, [and] the Vesper Service.” As for the book’s overall structure, Denver Bishop Nicholas Matz described the “selection and arrangement of its matter, is for practical purposes and information judiciously compiled.” In a nod to Woodman, Detroit Bishop John Foley acknowledged the “competent clergymen” who compiled the book.

The bishops pointed to the Manual’s conciliar nature. Many mentioned the book fulfilled the Third Plenary Council’s requirements, and Haid included the prayer book as one of the council’s positive outcomes. Given its origin, many predicted and encouraged the book’s wide acceptance among Catholics. Maes and Fort Wayne Bishop Joseph Dwenger boldly included non-Catholics as a potential audience. Maes employed the stream metaphor: “May the sight of the living source [liturgical prayer formulas] whence non-Catholic communities drew their only

117

meagre stream of devotion make many of their members thirst for the living waters of

everlasting life welling up in God’s only Catholic Holy Apostolic Church!” Corrigan, in the

foremost, and brief, testimonial and only archbishop included, summarized the above: “The

Manual of Prayers, compiled in accordance with the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of

Baltimore, is a very creditable work, both in point of form and of matter. I warmly recommend its use to the faithful of this Diocese.”

Many bishops emphasized the Manual’s catechetical role. Valued as a means of teaching

about the liturgy, the book enabled the laity to follow the Mass and other sacraments attentively

and with greater understanding. In addition, echoing the Third Plenary Council, Philadelphia

Archbishop Patrick Ryan declared the prayer book helpful as a priest’s aide in explaining

doctrines, sacraments, and sacramentals, and San Antonio Bishop John Neraz highlighted its

instructional matter—the introductions to the sacraments. Sister Katherine Carrell, superior of

Philadelphia’s Academy of the Sacred Heart, in the only non-bishop testimonial printed,

described the introduction’s importance:

We have examined the book thoroughly and are delighted with it, especially with the explanation of the Sacraments. So many Catholics are ignorant of these points that it will be a source of information as well as of devotion, and cause the Holy Sacraments to be received with greater reverence and fuller preparation.

A few bishops highlighted the prayer book’s role in teaching doctrine and how to pray.

Galveston Nicolaus Gallagher, taking the Manual as a whole, recommended it

for non-Catholics “who seek solid instruction and information.” Haid implicitly described the

doctrinal nature of liturgical prayer forms: “Sound doctrine is the basis of all solid piety. The

Manual instructs whilst it feeds the soul with holy inspirations and teaches how to pray.” Maes

explicated the role of liturgical prayer forms, concluding the Catholic laity’s piety would

118

increase “when reading attentively and reverently the beautiful word-forms consecrated by the

ecclesiastical usage of centuries.”

Bishops’ testimonials, albeit a marketing technique in Kehoe’s trade list, portray a high-

quality prayer book providing lay access to liturgical prayer forms and aiding catechesis. They

labeled the book “standard” and an “instructive prayer book.” Cheyenne Bishop Maurice Burke

equated it to the Church of England’s prayer book: “It is indeed gratifying to have at last a book

of common prayer for the Catholic laity of the United States.” The Manual of Prayers received

the ultimate testimonial a year after the book’s publication when CPS reported Corrigan

presented the book to Pope Leo XIII.17

Book Reviews

Three book reviews added to the bishops’ testimonies.18 They rhetorically questioned

introducing another prayer book in a late nineteenth-century market saturated with sentimental

books—slavishly compiled, full of errors and lacking proper approbation. Citing a dearth of

official prayer books, Philadelphia-based American Catholic Quarterly Review (ACQR) accused

publishers of not complying with the Holy See’s directives related to the Mass text. Its reviewers

surmised a prayer book, as the US bishops authorized, might rid the market of its excesses. The

Paulists’ Catholic World preferred the earlier and simpler English, Irish, and US colonial prayer

books. However, the reviewer understood the late nineteenth-century market demanded a larger

book and applauded publication of a complete and sanctioned one. The World quoted

17. Catholic Book Talk, Notes, September 1890, 8. 18. "The New Manual of Prayers," Catholic World, September 1889, 819-822; "Book Reviews," , June 29, 1889, 403; "Book Notices," The American Catholic Quarterly Review 14, no. 55 (1889): 569-570. The subsequent discussion derives from these reviews, except where noted.

119

Archbishop Francis Kenrick, compiler of the US Douay-Rheims Bible, who claimed in 1857,

“without catering to a vitiated taste for novelties, a large prayer book can be formed abounding

both in instruction and edification.” Asserting the Manual fulfilled Kenrick’s desire, the Catholic

Review hoped it would “banish from our country the miserable volumes which have vitiated

Catholic taste for prayer.”

While hoping for the Manual’s widespread adoption, reviewers hinted at either a smaller

audience or a rise in the demand for good Catholic literature. The World claimed the book

worthy “of intelligent Catholics,” and the Dublin-based Irish Monthly, receiving the book from

CPS’s London partner, Burns & Oates, defined the book “suitable for the educated faithful.” The

latter also claimed "nothing like it has been produced on this side of the Atlantic," differentiating

the Manual from the English bishops' 1886 Manual of Prayers.19

Reviewers familiar with publishing addressed the Manual’s compilation, review, and

design. They reported a single priest compiled the book, and many bishops reviewed proof

sheets, creating a longer-than-normal editorial process. Like the bishops, reviewers admired its

appearance. The quality paper, original font, initials, and ornamental section headings and

footers (head- and tail-pieces) merited a “perfect” grade. The trade journal, American

Bookmaker, cited its episcopal review as a new process in book editing, ensuring a work devoid

of minor typographical errors.20

In addition to describing the Manual’s reliance predominately upon Roman liturgical books (the World exaggerated that only “a score” of its pages derived from other sources),

19. The Irish Monthly, Notes on New Books, July 1891. 20. "Exteriors & Interiors: Books, Booklets and Brochures," American Bookmaker: A Journal of Technical Art and Information 9, no. 1 (1889): 8.

120

reviewers highlighted US components. The World pointed to the Manual’s devotions from

diverse cultures, without providing examples other than endorsing earlier US prayer books’

English and Irish heritage and claiming the laity’s longstanding use of its morning devotions.

ACQR endorsed its inclusion of Bishop John Carroll’s 1800 prayer for the United States, “so

long omitted, for some unaccountable reason, from all our prayer-books.”

In particular, reviewers stressed the Manual’s catechetical function, especially its novelty: providing English translations of sacramental rites with explanations, thereby creating a ritually complete prayer book. Unlike the bishops, reviewers focused less on the liturgical prayer forms’ doctrinal nature, instead emphasizing instructions. Juxtaposing it with a catechism, the

World undervalued the doctrinal nature of prayer formulas and justified the Manual’s instructional material as “in some degree necessary, for even though a prayer-book is principally taken up with formulas of prayer, it should possess and is often referred to, in the absence of a particular treatise, for what might be called the memoranda of Catholic belief and practice, and in this feature the book before us is most commendable.” In other words, a good prayer book contains instructions. The Review identified the doctrinal nature of prayer formulas by stating

“instructions and prayers on the points of doctrine and practice most familiar to the ordinary

Catholic make up the volume,” but pronounced the Manual’s thorough sacramental explanations

“the most striking feature of the book.”

Public testimonials and reviews provide little, if any, Manual criticism, and only two privately-expressed complaints have surfaced. The previous chapter cited Bishop Thomas

Grace’s concerns—and Gibbons’s response—related to its English scripture derived from

Kenrick’s translation. Additionally, Mary Colehan, parishioner of St. Michael’s parish,

121

Livermore, California, complained to Propaganda about the immorality and widespread practice of mixed marriages, and noted the “Baltimore Prayer Book” contained the rite, even though approved and included in the US Ritual Supplement.21 Her letter addresses the topic’s controversy—not the Manual—and conveys the book’s popular title.22

Bindings, Prices, and Early Sales

CPS advertised eleven

bindings in their July 1889 Catholic

Book Talk announcement, ranging

from $1.25 for the plainly-bound copy

to $6.00 for an elegant Russian leather

version (Figure 4).23 At the end of

1889, they announced a second

edition and increased bindings to

fourteen.24 In February 1890, CPS

announced a fourth edition and added

four rubricated Manuals, meaning its Figure 4. Manual of Prayers announcement in the July 1889 CPS trade list. pages highlighted important initials,

21. Mary J. Colehan to Pope Leo XIII, September 4, 1892, vol. 59, SC, First Series, ASCEP, 195r. 22. Some judged that mixed marriages, discouraged but reaffirmed by the Third Plenary Council, if accompanied by certain agreements of the married parties, increased due to lax oversight. Colehan endorsed an extreme position, disallowing all mixed marriages. 23. The New Prayer-Book, advertisement, Catholic Publication Society, Catholic Book Talk, July 1889, 341. 24. Second Edition Now Ready. The New Prayer-Book, advertisement, Catholic Publication Society, Catholic Book Talk, November 1889. The term edition, in late nineteenth-century , may mean significant or minor copy changes or simply another press run.

122

images, and text (such as headings) in red. These books cost from $4.50 to $7.00, depending upon binding, bringing the total CPS offerings to eighteen.25 Murphy’s announcement and

advertisement in Publishers Weekly introduced eight bindings, priced from $1.25 to $4.00,

stressing its size “smaller than St. Vincent’s Manual.”26 In total, the two publishers produced

twenty-six different bindings.

The Manual’s retail prices—the cheapest version at $1.2527—appears high compared to current book prices. Books in the late nineteenth century, though more numerous and affordable, remained a luxury. A typical new book cost $2.00 in the 1870s.28 Vicar General Norbert Kersten,

on behalf of Green Bay Bishop Frederick Katzer, considered the price moderate for the large amount of valuable material. However, Kersten may have overstated by claiming the book

“accessible to every one.” San Antonio Bishop John Neraz voiced a veiled concern: “I hope it will soon be in the hands of every English-speaking Catholic, particularly if the price of it can be within the reach of poor people.” The book’s lowest retail price, a low-to-moderate $1.25, made

it affordable for many but not all Catholics.

The Manual’s retail price included royalties paid to the publisher’s bishop, providing reports which may assist in tracking sales volumes. For every prayer book sold in the United

States, a royalty of six cents, about 5 percent of its price, was paid to the archbishops of either

25. The New Prayer-Book, advertisement, Catholic Publication Society, Catholic Book Talk, February 1890, 32. 26. Now Ready. The New Prayer-Book, advertisement, John Murphy, Publishers Weekly, August 17, 1889, 199. 27. USD (2013) 32.48. 28. Winship, 125.

123

Figure 5. John Murphy 1887-1890 sales: Baltimore Catechism and Manual of Prayers. Catechism reports missing for the first half of 1888.

Baltimore (Murphy) or New York (CPS). The prayer book (and catechism) agreements required a submission of royalty payments every January and July.29

Information from Murphy’s sales exists for the first 2.5 years of Manual production (mid-

1889 thru 1891) along with the Baltimore Catechism (no. 2) and its abridgment (no. 1), allowing a three-way comparison for the period.30 Figure 5 shows the larger catechism significantly

29. The Archdioceses of Baltimore and New York inconsistently received or maintained royalty reports during both books’ publications. AANY holds catechism reports submitted by CPS, Benziger Brothers, and the Book Company but no prayer book reports. AAB holds interspersed Murphy catechism and prayer book reports. Taken together, Benziger and Murphy make up the bulk of the reports. 30. Murphy to Gibbons, June 13, 1887, 82T9/82T10, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, January 31, 1889, 85P16, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, July 31, 1889, 86F12, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, January 31, 1890, 87C10, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, July 31, 1890, 87R8, Gibbons

124

outsold the shorter and the prayer book. Murphy’s Manual sales equal the abridged catechism

during its initial years.

The Dissolution of the Catholic Publication Society (CPS)

As cited in chapter one, CPS showed signs of poor business health during the Manual’s

compilation. Its strengths included quality product development and professional relations with

the national book trade centered in New York City. However, the company’s November 1887

fire, dissociation from the Catholic World, and inadequate marketing efforts restricted sales. A

reliable revenue stream required a traveling sales agent to develop relationships with booksellers

and extending credit to customers.31

As early as 1877, marketing problems plagued CPS. Fullam’s study shows a strained relationship between Kehoe and his sales agent, John Hammond, resulting in the latter’s departure in August 1886 before the Manual’s completion. Numerous unpaid accounts reduced the company’s cash flow, causing Kehoe to secure loans. Unable to afford Hammond’s

replacement, Kehoe had to forego a traveling agent, adversely affecting prayer book sales.32

Many late nineteenth-century book publishers shared CPS’s challenges: lack of organization, dependence on others for sales and distribution, and susceptibility to external factors such as fire, death, or economic panics. Excelling in production, they required assistance in other areas:

While they [book manufacturers] dominated the world they had made, their control was weak and disjointed. Despite possessing various stabilizing mechanisms (trusts, pools,

Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, January 31, 1891, 88H9, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, July 31, 1891, 88T9, Gibbons Papers, AAB; Murphy to Gibbons, January 30, 1892, 89L9, Gibbons Papers, AAB. 31. Winship, 120-121, 127. 32. Fullam, 50-69.

125

gentlemen’s agreements on pricing, and so on), individual enterprises remained volatile, bankruptcies abounded, profits gradually declined, and the boom-and-bust cycle spiraled uncontrollably. … Firms had concentrated on making the goods and relied on jobbers, wholesalers, and other middlemen to place them in stores.33

After the Manual’s announcement, additional factors aggravated the company’s weak condition

and affected its long-term viability. The Panic of 1893, the worst US depression up to that time,

which tested many a healthy business, affected many in the book trade.34 For CPS another

damaging event occurred when Lawrence Kehoe, its driving force, died seven months after the

Manual’s launch.

Kehoe, age fifty-seven and father of ten, died of pneumonia on February 27, 1890.

Obituaries mention his influence in national and Catholic publishing circles.35 Publishers Weekly

described him as a book trade reformer and quoted the New York Catholic publishers’ statement

on his death as “a severe blow to the interests of American Catholic literature, which he labored

to foster and advance.” Notre Dame’s Ave Maria magazine lamented the loss of one of the

“‘lights’ of the Catholic literary circle in New York.” At his funeral, Woodman, the Manual’s

compiler, paid warm tribute to Kehoe’s longstanding Paulist relationship:

It is proper that one of the Paulist community should be chosen to perform this duty. For nearly twenty-five years, since its foundation, the business direction of one of the great works of the Paulist Congregation was given to Mr. Kehoe, and remained in his hands until his fatal illness. Every member of the community entertained the deepest friendship

33. Richard Ohmann, "Diverging Paths: Books and Magazines in the Transition to Corporate Capitalism," in Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880-1940, ed. Carl F. Kaestle, Janice A. Radway (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 110, 112. 34. Elmus Wicker, Banking Panics of the Gilded Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Wicker shows the Panic of 1893, with a larger number of bank failures and geographic incidence, shares more in common with the Great Depression than the Panics of 1873, 1884, 1890, and 1907. 35. Publishers Weekly, "Lawrence Kehoe," Obituary, March 8, 1890, 357; The American Bookseller, "Lawrence Kehoe," Obituary, March 1, 1890, 138; The American Stationer, "Lawrence Kehoe," Obituary, March 6, 1890, 591- 592; The Literary World, "News and Notes," Obituary, April 12, 1890, 130; "Lawrence Kehoe," New York Times, February 28 1890; Ave Maria, "Notes and Remarks," Obituary, March 8, 1890, 233-234.

126

for him, and pays loving tribute to his worth. I think that Lawrence Kehoe had a true vocation for the spread of Catholic literature, and that he fulfilled his calling admirably.36

Redirection and Disintegration

After Kehoe’s death, CPS’s trustees directed the company. Obituaries report Kehoe as the company’s principal stockholder, and his estate later controlled his shares. Records show

Kehoe’s eldest son, Miles, age twenty-seven and estranged from his father, never engaged in the company’s management after his father’s death, creating a void for the next eldest son, John, age twenty-two, to fill in subsequent years. In the interim, other owners played a role.

Lawrence Kehoe had incorporated CPS in 1883 with four business partners: two from

George Hecker’s ownership era and two new partners from Burns & Oates, internationalizing the company’s portfolio.37 Prior CPS owners Josiah Wentworth, Hecker’s brother-in-law, and his son-in-law Edward Slevin emerged as primary trustees after Kehoe’s death; the company announced Wentworth as president.38 CPS possessed more than a business agreement with Burns

& Oates; their executives, Wilfred Oates, son of the company’s namesake William Oates, and

Joseph Hennessy, contributed capital. Wilfred Oates withdrew from Burns & Oates in 1885,

leaving Hennessy its director.39 The latter remained associated with CPS, playing a subordinate

role in the years after Kehoe’s death but emerging later in 1892.

The company altered its business strategy. Its management did not possess Kehoe’s

desire, drive, or skills and failed to develop a national marketing system. Fullam describes this

phase of CPS as one of “steady disintegration.” In the September 1890 Catholic Book Talk, the

36. Rea, 34. 37. Certificate of Incorporation of The Catholic Publication Society Company, December 21, 1883, 925/1883C, Certificates of Incorporation, NYCC. 38. Publishers Weekly, March 8, 1890, 357. 39. British Literary Publishing Houses, 1820-1880, s.v. "Burns and Oates."

127

company reported Kehoe’s “family retains his full interest in the corporation,” but undervalued

those interests as his “pet hobby”—creating high-quality literary works for Catholics. Business

continued but without the capital needed to advance CPS as a national Catholic publisher. The

company advertised a significant change in the February 1891 Publishers Weekly: “The

Company, heretofore, doing almost exclusively a wholesale business will give special attention

to the retail trade.” Instead of expanding its national distribution system, company directors

opted to open a retail store, entailing a move from Barclay Street, in Lower Manhattan’s

Financial District, to East Seventeenth Street in Midtown, stating, in the May 1891 Catholic

Book Talk, the wholesale business “is bound to follow us.” The change of direction did not bode

well for marketing the Manual of Prayers nationwide.40

Despite renewed focus, CPS continued to disintegrate, resulting in fragmenting its assets and reconfiguring ownership. What Lawrence Kehoe assembled, others dismantled. In mid-1892,

Wentworth and business manager K. W. Barry resigned.41 After Wentworth’s departure, Joseph

Hennessy, director of Burns & Oates, visited New York from late 1892 to early 1893 intent on

finding new ownership.

Hennessy oversaw the company’s final disintegration. He sold the company’s school

book business to Slevin and John Kehoe in December 1892 for $25,000,42 significantly reducing

their ownership in CPS. Slevin, Kehoe, and others from George Hecker’s family formed the

Catholic School Book Company.43 This purchase, John Kehoe later noted to Corrigan, included

40. Fullam, 71; Catholic Book Talk, September 1890, 1-2; Announcement, advertisement, Catholic Publication Society, Publishers Weekly, no. 994, February 14, 1891, 299; Catholic Book Talk, Notes, May 1891, 1. 41. Publishers Weekly, "Business Notes," April 30, 1892, 672. 42. USD (2013) 649,537. 43. Fullam, 72-73.

128

the Baltimore Catechism’s plates and business agreements.44 Slevin and Wentworth’s

professional reputations may have prompted their removal from the CPS board. In July 1895, the

New York Supreme Court convicted John Hecker, George Hecker’s nephew, Slevin, and

Wentworth, all trustees of George Hecker’s estate, of misappropriation of its funds during 1894

and ordered them to repay $187,000,45 casting doubt on their capacity to direct CPS.46 As

Hecker’s trustees, Wentworth and Slevin managed his mill business simultaneously with CPS.

By the end of 1892, they divested their CPS shares, and John Kehoe retained a meager five

shares. In 1893, British Catholic publisher Joseph Hennessy, director of Burns & Oates, owned

CPS, including the US bishops’ national prayer book.

Hennessy attempted to find a manager or suitable buyer for CPS, ensuring the firm’s

survival. He informed William Onahan, prominent Chicago Catholic lay leader, then organizing

the 1893 Columbian Catholic Congress, that he “failed to find any capable responsible person to

manage or take over the concern even with the offer of capital to [the] extent of $25,000.”47 In

February 1893, before returning to London, he promoted his brother, Walter, treasurer and former clerk of CPS, to superintendent and gave him part ownership. Unsuccessful in securing a new proprietor and unable to rebuild the business, on July 6, 1894, the CPS board of trustees,

Joseph and Walter Hennessy as principal stockholders with John Kehoe, resolved to dissolve the company.48

44. John Kehoe to Corrigan, January 17, 1895, G8, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 45. USD (2013) 5,247,220. 46. "The Trustees Must Pay: Milling Stocks Improperly Used, John V. Hecker, J. W. Wentworth, and E. P. Slevin Declared to Have Misappropriated Property of the Estate," , July 4, 1895. 47. Hennessy to Onahan, January 31, 1893, 2/05, January to June 1893, William James Onahan Papers (ONA), UNDA. 48. Clerk Filing, In Re: Catholic Publication Society, May 29, 1896, GA307/1896, Equity Actions, NYCC.

129

Voluntary Dissolution

Dissolving a corporation involves civil courts and by implication public exposure. The

New York Times reported the firm “financially embarrassed.”49 The trustees attributed their

resolution to a shrinking business, expenses exceeding income and profits, and inability to pay

rent. The New York Supreme Court appointed a receiver, William Angelo, to represent creditors

and ordered him to sell the company’s assets at optimal value. While securing purchasers for the

assets, Angelo paid necessary expenses. After filing for dissolution, the company’s business

closed. From July 1894 until the Manual of Prayers’ purchase in February 1896, John Murphy remained its sole publisher.

CPS officials itemized liabilities and assets, including an inventory of book plates. The

schedule included the Manual’s plates, listed as one of many, but court records reveal Angelo

considered the Manual the company’s most valuable asset:

The principal asset of the company consists of stereotyped plates and it is impossible to arrive at a valuation of these. … The plates for the “Manual of Prayers” alone cost between $6,000 and $7,000, and, formerly, the copyright for this was extremely valuable. The sales of this Manual have largely decreased and the value of these plates is problematical, but should not be less than $1,000 to $2,000. These are the most valuable plates in possession of the company.50

Charged with determining an asset’s worth, Angelo evaluated the Manual’s sales potential, five years after its original publication. Assessing its declining sales, he stated CPS owned the Manual’s plates and copyright, which explains his “problematical” and optimistic valuation. In 1889, Woodman transferred its copyright to CPS, a valid business transaction yet not one recorded as an assignment in the US Copyright Office. With the prayer book’s future

49. "In the Hands of a Receiver: Catholic Publication Society to Dissolve because of Poor Business," New York Times, August 1, 1894. 50. Hearing, In Re: Catholic Publication Society, November 23, 1894, GA307/1896, Equity Actions, NYCC.

130

uncertain, Angelo concluded it still possessed sales potential—and/or its copyright significantly

added to its valuation—designating it the company’s most valuable asset.

The Manual’s valuation by Angelo caused CPS’s assets to sell in two transactions.

Before any sale, the claims of Peoria Bishop and Paulist Alexander P.

Doyle to their works’ plates required resolution. In January 1895 when two buyers expressed interest, Rev. James L. Meagher, a diocesan priest and Christian Press Association’s president, provided a down payment and “made arrangements” with Spalding and Doyle, who withdrew their claims.51 On February 6, 1895, the court approved Angelo’s sale of CPS assets except those

of the Manual of Prayer to Meagher for $2,000.52 Angelo reported in May 1895 the prayer book

“reserved for special reasons, at private sale,” presumably seeking other prospective buyers.53 By the end of 1895, he produced a court-approved agreement with Meagher.54 On February 29, 1896

he sold to him the Manual’s “copyright and three sets of stereotype plates” with five

miscellaneous plates and other unsold CPS property for $2,500.55 and subsequently reassigned its

copyright to CPA.56 The Manual copyright and plates sold for more than the company’s other

assets, attesting to its perceived value.57

51. Petition, In Re: Catholic Publication Society, February 1, 1895, GA307/1896, Equity Actions, NYCC. 52. USD (2013) 56,120. Order, In Re: Catholic Publication Society, February 6, 1895, GA307/1896, Equity Actions, NYCC. 53. Petition, In Re: Catholic Publication Society, May 22, 1895, GA307/1896, Equity Actions, NYCC. 54. Mem. of Agreement, dated November 21, 1895 (Plaintiff's Exhibit E), Frank K. Murphy vs. Christian Press Association Publishing Company, GA1473/1899, Equity Archives, NYCC, 74-75 (art. 296-300). 55. USD (2013) 70,150. 56. Receiver Bill of Sale, dated February 29, 1896 (Defendants' Exhibit 4), Frank K. Murphy vs. Christian Press Association Publishing Company, GA1473/1899, Equity Archives, NYCC, 79-80 (art. 313-318); Copyright Office of the United States, Assignments of Copyrights, 85-86 (recorded March 24, 1896). 57. In 1896, John Kehoe and the Catholic School Book Company purchased the Manual's remaining stock from the receiver and advertised its sale in: Catholic School Book Company, The Official Prayer Book, advertisement, 1897 Catholic Family Annual, 1896, 150-151.

131

The story of CPS’s voluntary dissolution portrays the challenges a late nineteenth-century

publisher faced with rudimentary management and financial systems, and disruption of a

founder’s death during a time of significant transition in the book trade. A burgeoning reading

public did not increase the number of small regional publishers. Rather, large national publishers,

obtaining capital, modern organization, and control of distribution, emerged. CPS floundered

while others went out of business or luckily survived. Some family-operated companies

undertook necessary changes. The story of Harper’s parallels CPS. Fletcher Harper, like

Lawrence Kehoe, died in 1890, and his heirs divested their shares in the company, causing sale

of its school textbook business. The Panic of 1893 and declining profits left the company

financially vulnerable. Its owners turned to J.P. Morgan and received needed capital and

management oversight, eventually transforming the company into a national publisher.58 While

not a direct comparison to Harper’s, a general publisher of a wide variety of books, CPS had a

potential market in the nation’s growing Catholic population and network of schools. Without

needed capital and management, CPS dissolved and left the national market to other Catholic

and general publishers.

58. Michael Winship, "The Rise of the National Book Trade System in the United States," in Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880-1940, ed. Carl F. Kaestle, Janice A. Radway (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 57-58.

132

CPS and Benziger

Figure 6 shows the top six publishers of Catholic books for three five-year periods

spanning from 1881 to 1895, based upon new titles. The chart reveals the prodigious output of

CPS under Kehoe’s ownership after 1883 and the firm’s vanguard nature before the company’s

dissolution. The chart also indicates the rearrangement of top Catholic publishers during the

early 1890s upheaval. In addition to CPS’s disintegration, Sadlier’s book titles decreased while

adjusting to market conditions by focusing on textbooks. In addition, the general publishers,

Scribner’s and Macmillan, developing national capacities, emerged as leading providers of

Catholic books. Throughout the fifteen-year period, Benziger maintained consistent growth and

Figure 6. Top US publishers of Catholic books, 1881-1885, 1886-1890, and 1891-1895. Sources: Data adapted from M. Avelina Dawson, “A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1881-1885” (master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1951), 76-79; Mary Patricia Ruskin, “A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1886-1890” (master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1952), 235-241; Josephine Ti Ti Chen, “A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1891-1895” (master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1956), 130-137.

133 replaced CPS as the number one publisher of Catholic book titles.

Benziger, a Catholic publishing firm founded in Einsiedeln, Switzerland by Joseph

Charles Benziger, opened US branches in New York City (1853), Cincinnati (1860), and

Chicago (1887). In addition to a sizable list of German titles, the firm diversified its offerings with publication of Catholic books in English.59 The firm’s aggressive expansion prepared it for the early-1890s book trade disruptions.

While German-speaking Catholics continued to use catechisms and prayer books published in their ancestral language, Spalding and Benziger advanced acceptance of the

Baltimore Catechism in German. As the company expanded into the English-speaking market, they secured the catechism’s copyright from Spalding and agreed to CPS’s contract. Benziger lent its endorsement to the catechism by becoming a primary publisher and more importantly by providing German, French, and Spanish translations.60

The bishops’ catechism—and prayer book—required Benziger’s approval to gain acceptance in German-speaking Catholic communities, which distrusted CPS. In 1881, before the Third Plenary Council, Kehoe’s sales agent, John Hammond, in a letter titled “Is this the

Secret?” revealed how Germans preferred Benziger and Spalding, and, quoting a conversation with a “prominent priest,” explained their resistance to CPS:

It is deep rooted and dates back to the organization of the Paulist Fathers. When Fr. Hecker first became a convert, he joined the Redemptorists (I think) whose aim and object is to work exclusively for the Germans - he finally left them and started the Congregation of Paulists - a matter which the Germans never forgave him - and have from time to time since - predicted the fall of the Congregation - at least when Fr. H dies so will the Paulist Fathers and the C.P.S. Co! So thinks most of the German priests. For this reason you will expect but little patronage from the Germans. … They don’t care for

59. Catholic Encyclopedia, (1907), s.v. "Joseph Charles Benziger." 60. Benziger Bros. to Corrigan, January 30, 1887, G38, Folder 7, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY.

134

Bishop Gibbons or his works - they prefer Spaldings, because they are the most popular, … but from the very fact of the C.P.S. Co and the Paulists - publishing them they won’t have them!61

The decision of Benziger, the largest US Catholic publisher in the 1890s, not to market the

Manual of Prayers proved detrimental to its acceptance in non-English-speaking markets and

denied it access to Benziger’s growing customer base.

Why did Benziger decline Kehoe’s Manual arrangement? While they desired to penetrate the English market, perhaps they required multiple translations of US bishops’ books, as with the catechism; however, the prayer book’s size with its English customs presented a complicated, expensive task, essentially requiring a recompilation. Gibbons’s 1895 abridgement recommendation presented an opportunity to produce such an effort, increasing chances for

Benziger to adopt it.

Alternatively, perhaps, the Benziger firm’s decision relates to the German Question’s resurgence coinciding with the Manual’s release. In 1891, prominent German businessman Peter

Paul Cahensly, founder of the St. Raphael’s Society for the Protection of German Catholic

Emigrants, presented a memorial to the Holy See criticizing the US bishops for neglecting

German immigrants’ pastoral needs. Exacerbating the issues, St. Paul Archbishop John Ireland supported a Wisconsin law requiring public and private schools to teach subjects in English.

While the bishops desired prayer book uniformity, a national prayer book published in English suggested the goal of uniformity of language for US Catholics. Not all bishops would have

61. Hammond to Kehoe, February 16, 1881, 1/7, Lawrence Kehoe Papers (CKEH), UNDA; Responding to Notre Dame president Thomas Walsh, CSC, concerning his son's drinking, Kehoe feared German Catholic publishers would assume the mantle of US Catholic publishing, which he partly attributed to Irish sons succumbing to alcohol. Kehoe to Walsh, May 9, 1887, 31/1, Notre Dame Presidents' Letters, 1856-1906 (UPEL), UNDA.

135 agreed with such a controversial goal. The situation warranted Benziger to supply the necessary revisions.

The New Owner: Rev. James Luke Meagher

The Manual, produced by a competent publisher, languished without an effective marketing strategy. The New York Supreme Court, five years after first publication, effectively made it a “ward of the state” and determined its future. Despite a new owner, matters progressed from bad to worse.

Born in Prospect Hall, County Waterford, Ireland in 1848, James Luke Meagher immigrated to Canada with his parents in 1849.

The family eventually settled in Port Henry,

New York. He attended St. Mary’s College and the Grand Seminary in nearby Montreal and was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Albany in 1875. After ministering in several parishes, he served as assistant pastor at St. Mary’s

Parish in Oswego, New York, and authored his first book in 1882, Teaching Truth by Signs and

Ceremonies.62

A parish history respectfully describes Figure 7. Rev. James Luke Meagher Photo courtesy of Archives of the Diocese of Syracuse

62. Joseph Casimir O'Meagher, Some Historical Notices of the O'Meaghers of lkerrin (1890), 180-181. O'Meagher's publicaton features a full-page artistic rendering of Meagher; Jas. L. Meagher, Teaching Truth by Signs and Ceremonies; or, The Church, Its Rites and Services, Explained for the People (New York: Russell Brothers, 1882).

136

Meagher as “a gifted but controversial figure.”63 He published five popular books between 1882 and 1887 in which he “explained for the people” religious topics.64 Moreover, he possessed a history of mental instability and neglected parish responsibilities, raising questions of his ministerial capacity. Complaints against him included lying, libeling, leading a cult, stealing parish money, to name a few.65 He recruited canvassers, mostly women, to sell his books: “A number of ladies are ready to begin the good work and devote their lives to it when we are sure the time has come.”66 His pastor at Oswego, Louis Griffa, described his charisma; Meagher captivated his followers, whose regard for him as a saint made them vulnerable to his manipulations. "He will do anything for money, or for revenge, or for ambition. In my long life, and 48 years of priesthood, I never met, I do not say a priest, but not even a man so wicked."67

Among bishops, Meagher’s reputation scarcely fared better. In 1883, he placed New

York Cardinal John McCloskey’s imprimatur on his second book, drawing the latter’s ire and that of his secretary, Msgr. John Farley, future cardinal-archbishop of New York, who wrote to

Albany Bishop Francis McNeirny: “The Cardinal is rather surprised that a priest should take the

63. Centennial Celebration: St. James Church, 1953, P-24/P-25, Diocese of Syracuse Parishes and Missions of the Roman and Eastern Rite, ADS, 2. 64. After Teaching Truth in 1882, Meagher published: Jas. L. Meagher, The Festal Year; or, The Origin, History, Ceremonies and Meaning of the Sundays, Seasons, Feasts and Festivals of the Church During the Year, Explained for the People (New York: Russell Brothers, 1883); Meagher, The Great and Most Celebrated Churches of the World (New York: Russell Brothers, 1884); Meagher, The Seven Gates of Heaven; or, The Teachings, Discipline, Customs, and Manners of Administering the Sacraments, etc. Explained for the People (New York: Russell Brothers, 1885); Meagher, Man, the Mirror of the Universe; or, The Agreement of Science and Religion, Explained for the People (New York: Russell Brothers, 1887). 65. David O'Brien, Faith and Friendship: Catholicism in the Diocese of Syracuse, 1886-1986 (Syracuse, NY: Office for Communications, Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, 1987), 106, 108. 66. Undated correspondence between Meagher and Corrigan, "Following your advice," 1883, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 67. Griffa to Ludden, December 16, 1888, Box 1, Bishop Ludden (BP 1), ADS; Rev. P. F. Smith, Meagher's former pastor at St. Mary's Parish in Hudson, New York, informed Albany Bishop Francis McNeirny of Meagher's self-ascribed disorder of the mind: Controversial Priests, P.F. Smith to McNeirny (transcribed), December 27, 1878, Sec. II, M, Box 5, Rev. James Luke Meagher Folder, Ordained Ministers (OM), ADS.

137 liberty of putting an Imprimatur of a Bishop on his work without even informing him that such a book had been ever written.”68 To improve relations with the New York archdiocese, Meagher next cultivated the favor of Corrigan, then McCloskey’s coadjutor. Corrigan provided editorial comments on Teaching Truth, and Meagher sought his advice for subsequent books and .69 Yet, concerning his own bishop, Meagher failed to develop confidence.

With its growing population and problems involving diocesan priests, the Holy See partitioned the Diocese of Albany to create the Diocese of Syracuse in November 1886 and appointed Patrick Ludden its bishop. A capable pastor and administrator, the former vicar general of Albany, familiar with the new diocese’s problems, reluctantly accepted the task.

Ludden, while involving well-respected priests in decision making, did not tolerate disciplinary problems and resolved inherited controversies by 1895.70 When writing later about Meagher, he acknowledged the new diocese inherited, “a large share of the weak unworthy and disobedient priests of the old diocese of Albany, … [as] is often a preparation for the division of a diocese.”71

In June 1888, a year after appointed bishop, Ludden initiated diocesan court proceedings against Meagher, then pastor at the mission of St. James in the summer resort town of

Cazenovia, New York, commencing a contentious battle between bishop and priest lasting seven years. The court investigated the accusation that one of Meagher’s book canvassers and housekeeper, “formerly a Religious, … left her convent, presumably at his suggestion after having made perpetual vows, all without obtaining a dispensation.” Meagher appealed to

68. Farley to McNeirny, November 3, 1883, 1.4-3-1, Bishop Francis McNeirny, D.D., ADA. 69. Meagher wrote Corrigan early in his career about his writings and McCloskey's denial of the imprimatur for his books. The best examples: Meagher to Corrigan, July 31, 1883, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY; Meagher to Corrigan, December 20, 1884, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 70. O'Brien, Faith and Friendship: Catholicism in the Diocese of Syracuse, 1886-1986, 99-112. 71. Ludden to Satolli, March 25, 1895, fols. 84-86, ASVSY, 85v.

138

Corrigan.72 In 1889, the case advanced to the court of the ecclesiastical province of New York,

while Meagher contended with charges of embezzling parish funds and a civil libel suit filed by a

St. James founder, the layman Andrew Dardis.

The provincial court decided in the defendant’s favor based exclusively on the status of

the sister’s dispensation and without consideration of Meagher’s influence, occasioning

Ludden’s appeal to Propaganda in 1890.73 In response, Propaganda backed the provincial court;

however, after a deluge of parishioners’ complaints, it requested another canonical investigation

in August 1891.74 Corrigan proposed Ludden simply cull prior evidence to obtain the more

general “judicial sentence of incompetence.”75 Propaganda, while deciding in Meagher’s favor, placed him under a praeceptum ordinarii, a disciplinary warning not as severe as a .76

Frustrated with the canonical process and concerned about additional publicity, Ludden refrained

from further accusations despite Meagher’s continued improper behavior, stating:

Still matters go on there [in St. James] from bad to worse and neighboring priests are often invited to attend to the spiritual wants of the people. This priest Meagher is now engaged in some cheap newspaper and book business in New York and neglects his mission [parish]. I cannot do anything in his case except enter the miserable business of canonical trials and investigations with their train of expenses and other evil consequences.77

The Christian Press Association

Meagher entered the book trade as an author, but with his books not selling well through

retailers and parish missions he soon advanced to marketing. While sellers may have refused his

72. Lynch to Satolli, April 19, 1895, fols. 107-113, ASVSY, 110; Meagher to Corrigan, June 30, 1888, G62, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 73. Ludden to Corrigan, January 7, 1890, C16, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 74. Simeoni to Ludden, June 11, 1890, fol. 61, ASVSY; Simeoni to Ludden, August 13, 1891, fol. 99, ASVSY. 75. Corrigan to Ludden, September 12, 1891, C18, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 76. Lynch to Satolli, April 19, 1895, fols. 107-113, ASVSY, 110. 77. Ludden to Satolli, March 25, 1895, fols. 84-86, ASVSY, 86r-v.

139

books because of their content, Meagher correctly diagnosed limitations in publishers’ sales

channels. He thereby developed his own sales strategy: followers promoting and selling his books door to door, which he considered a “movement” in the church. In December 1884, he reported sales of 19,000 copies of his first two books through canvassing New York State and the surrounding area.78

The combative atmosphere and disciplinary actions from 1888 to 1891 restrained

Meagher’s marketing efforts, but he developed a new strategy. Earlier, he had authored five

books in a six-year period; a three-year lapse occurred before his sixth book appeared in 1892.79

Moreover, he encountered the geographic limitations of his canvassing movement, and public

trials did not improve his credibility. Nonetheless, emboldened by his perceived court victories over Ludden, Meagher desired to expand his publishing efforts. In early 1892, he approached

Corrigan about the concept of a New York-based Catholic publication entity operated by well- known priest authors. According to Meagher, Corrigan requested a written proposal, coinciding with CPS’s disintegration under Wentworth’s leadership in mid-1892.80

The “Constitution of the Christian Press Association” outlines Meagher’s techniques,

including the passionate appeal for an ambitious vision. In broad strokes, a Catholic publishing

company, operating under episcopal approbation, aimed to produce a Catholic weekly, encyclopedia, English translations of ancient Christian writers, and a news agency providing

“original matter” to other Catholic publishers. The statement promoted a sense of urgency and

78. Undated correspondence between Meagher and Corrigan, "Following your advice," 1883, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY; Undated correspondence between Meagher and Corrigan, "By the papers I learned," 1883, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY; Meagher to Corrigan, December 20, 1884, C10, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 79. Jas. L. Meagher, Christ's Kingdom: Or the Church and her Divine Constitution, Organization and Framework, Explained for the People (New York: Russell Brothers, 1892). 80. Meagher to Corrigan, April 5, 1892, C30, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY.

140

appealed to Corrigan’s supposed ambitions: “Now the time has come for the Church to seize this

opportunity, which may not occur again in generations. It will be one of the glories of your

administration.”81

Meagher’s association, similar to a trade guild for clergy authors, joined together priests

to circumvent existing Catholic publishers. Unlike the latter, driven by financial concerns, the

priests would concentrate on creating affordable books of instruction on the Catholic faith. Their

confrères, parish priests, would advertise the association’s works, generating demand from

parishioners. The author priests, solely devoted to the association’s mission, “should then be free

from the cares and labors of parish duty,” echoing Meagher’s concern with his own bishop.82

Meagher recruited prominent Irish-Catholic priest writers, John Talbot Smith, Bernard

O’Reilly, and Richard Howley, and stated others promised to join after the association formed.

John Talbot Smith (1855-1923), an Ogdensburg (New York) diocesan priest, permitted to pursue

a literary career in New York City, edited the Catholic Review from 1889 to 1892. Smith wrote

successful histories, fiction, and plays, later founding the Catholic Actors’ Guild and Catholic

Writers’ Guild.83 Bernard O’Reilly (1820-1907), formerly a Quebec diocesan priest and ex-

Jesuit, wrote moral guides for Catholic women and men and encyclopedia articles. The famed

Civil War Irish Brigade chaplain spent extensive time in Rome, and Pope Leo XIII appointed

O’Reilly to write his official, English-language biography.84 Having traveled widely, Richard

Vincent Howley (1836-1912), a diocesan priest of St. John’s, Newfoundland and brother of its

81. Meagher to Corrigan, April 30, 1892, C30, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 82. Ibid. 83. Charles Fanning, The Irish Voice in America: 250 Years of Irish-American Fiction, 2nd ed. (Lexington, KY: University Press of , 2000), 189-197; Frances Panchok, “The Catholic Church and the Theatre in New York, 1890-1920” (PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1976), 440-535. 84. Fanning, 158-159; Catholic Encyclopedia, (1911), s.v. "Bernard O'Reilly."

141

Archbishop Michael Howley, wrote numerous articles for Catholic periodicals.85 Having

recruited three well-known Catholic writers, Meagher’s plans may have enjoyed credibility.86

Typically he interpreted any affirmation as endorsement, which he subsequently used to his advantage thereby reducing his trustworthiness. Moreover, the priests’ mobility attracted

Meagher as much as their writing accomplishments.

Corrigan, either privately open to the idea or seeking disapproval, submitted Meagher’s proposal to his diocesan consultors. On May 3, 1892, they “came to the conclusion that the time was not ripe to establish such an association as proposed in this diocese.”87 Meagher

recommended Corrigan decide for himself and apologized for the plan’s lack of detail. He

blamed the rejection on his disciplinary cases and assured Corrigan of his desire not to attract

disobedient priests. As author of six books selling 50,000 copies, he claimed to know “the way

of disposing of books, as that is the chief difficulty in the book business and the way is clear

now.” While he informed Corrigan of Howley’s withdrawal, Meagher upheld the plan’s far-

reaching designs, “to build up a great institution in New York, like Catholic University.”88

Rejected but undaunted, Meagher saw another opportunity when Archbishop Francesco Satolli

arrived in 1893 as apostolic delegate to the United States.

85. Linda White, "Howley Family Papers, Coll-262", Archives and Special Collections, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University, St. John's, NL, http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/ref/collection/ead/id/261 (accessed January 8, 2015). 86. Meagher also mentioned Louis A. Lambert, another prominent Catholic clergyman affiliated with the press, as interested in the scheme, but excluded his name in the submitted “Constitution.” The Diocese of Rochester incardinated Lambert, a former diocesan priest of Alton, , and a Paulist, but a public conflict ensued between Lambert and Rochester Bishop Bernard McQuaid. 87. Meagher to Corrigan, April 30, 1892, 's handwritten reply, May 4, 1892, C30, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 88. Meagher to Corrigan, May 24, 1892, C30, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY.

142

Francesco Satolli: The Patron

Cardinal Gioacchino Pecci, bishop of Perugia, Italy, and elected Pope Leo XIII in 1878,

ordained Satolli in 1862. Desiring to renew Thomistic studies, the pope requested Satolli, a

renowned Thomist, to teach at Propaganda’s Urban College in Rome. Satolli later presided over

the papal diplomatic college in 1886, and Leo XIII appointed him titular archbishop in 1888.89

Satolli’s reception in New York and his first official acts distanced him from Corrigan.

Leo XIII sent Satolli to the United States in the fall of 1892 ostensibly to convey historic maps lent from the Vatican Archives for exhibition at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. He was also given faculties to resolve church issues, including conflicts between bishops and priests and public divisions in the episcopacy over the “school question,” culminating in his appointment as resident apostolic delegate. Though the Third Plenary Council decreed each parish support a

Catholic school, notwithstanding daunting costs, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul defended a shared arrangement of Catholic and public schools at Faribault and Stillwater, Minnesota, in his archdiocese to mitigate expenses. Following a lengthy process Propaganda judged Ireland’s local accommodation tolerable. Nevertheless, Corrigan, fearing its adoption elsewhere, opposed the

“secularization” of parochial schools, and the press seized upon the issue. Satolli arrived in New

York in October 1892—an arrival unknown to the New York archbishop’s knowledge—and felt slighted by Corrigan. Thus began “an enmity which would color the first years of the Satolli delegation.”90

89. Robert J. Wister, “The Establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States of America: The Satolli Mission, 1892-1896” (Hist.Eccl.D. diss., Pontificia Universitate Gregoriana, 1981), 37-40. 90. Ibid., 66.

143

Satolli submitted a proposal in accord with the Congregation’s decision to resolve the

school question, intending US archbishops to endorse at their November 1892 gathering. Most

US bishops led by Corrigan opposed the proposition and questioned Satolli’s authority. In

December 1892, the chasm between Corrigan and Satolli widened when the latter lifted the

former’s excommunication of the politically active New York priest, Edward McGlynn, without

consulting the archbishop.91

Many US bishops opposed Satolli’s appointment as apostolic delegate in January 1893,

fearing it undermined their authority. Supporting these suspicions, Propaganda granted the

delegate special faculties to settle disputes between bishops and priests. In early 1893, these

powers and the McGlynn affair “attracted to Satolli, like flies to honey, many priests who were at

odds with their bishops.”92 Corrigan’s feud with Satolli made this especially true in New York.

Meagher’s bishop, Ludden, assured Corrigan that the apostolic delegate would learn and eventually support the episcopacy, the first order as:

The illustrious Delegate can rule Bishops easily enough into obedience but when he comes to deal with the contumacious of the “second order” he will find matters more difficult. Will more of such experience attend him. He commenced by sowing the winds and now he is beginning to reap the whirlwinds. He started with false ideas regarding the relations that exist between the first and second order. He will soon find the real state of affairs and religion will be the better for it.93

Meagher, wasting no time approaching Satolli, sent him a copy of his new book, Christ’s

Kingdom. In reply, Satolli’s obligatory congratulations encouraged Meagher.94 Such a work

91. Ibid., 43-81, 142-158, 179-183; See also Wister's abridgement: Robert J. Wister, "The First Apostolic Delegation," U.S. Catholic Historian 12, no. 2 (1994): 31-43. 92. Trisco, 260-262. 93. Ludden to Corrigan, March 21, 1893, G3, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 94. Russell Brothers printed Satolli’s January 10, 1893 letter in the front matter of a later edition of Christ’s Kingdom.

144

corresponded to Satolli’s view that the Church proactively use the press.95 When visiting Satolli

in the spring of 1893, Meagher introduced his publishing scheme. Satolli lauded the idea but recommended Meagher approach the US bishops for their approval. Meagher sent an updated and enlarged version of the “Constitution” along with Satolli’s recommendation to various bishops. Typically, he exaggerated Satolli’s role, advertising him as the association’s patron:

“After exposing the whole design to the Apostolic Delegate, both in writing and by word of mouth, he promises to take the Association under his special patronage, and to lay it before the

Holy Father.”96 Meagher exploited Satolli, not fluent in English and easily susceptible to manipulation early in his tenure. In May 1893 a parallel issue arose, in which Satolli promoted

an Italian New York priest’s financial request to Propaganda and Pope Leo XIII, before inquiring

about the priest with a proven record of financial mismanagement.97

In August 1893, Meagher provided Satolli with testimonials, “according to your

directions last spring,” from two cardinals, six archbishops, and nineteen bishops.98 Many granted the expected encouragements. In addition to Satolli, Meagher featured Gibbons’s praise, which called attention to the “blessing which the Holy Father’s representative among us has already given.” Approbations increased as others cited Satolli and Gibbons’s blessing or voiced a

95. "Satolli Speaks: The Prelate Outlines the Mission of the Catholic Church in America," The World, January 29, 1893; Francesco Satolli, "The Fourth Power: The Place of the Press in the Public Life," in Loyalty to Church and State: The Mind of His Excellency, Francis Archbishop Satolli, ed. J. R. Slattery (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1895). 96. Meagher to Satolli, May 7, 1893, fol. 37, ASVSY. 97. Wister, "The Establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States of America: The Satolli Mission, 1892-1896," 186. 98. Cardinals: Gibbons (Baltimore) and Logue (Armagh); Archbishops: Chappelle (coadjutor, Santa Fe), Duhamel (Ottawa), Elder (Cincinnati), Flood (Port of Spain), Janssens (New Orleans), and Katzer (Milwaukee); Bishops: Beaven (Springfield, MA), Brondel (Helena), Cosgrove (Davenport), Gabriels (Ogdensburg), Gloriex (Boise City), Hogan (Kansas City), Kain (Wheeling), Maes (Covington), Manogue (Sacramento), Marty (Sioux Falls), McDonald (Charlottetown), McGolrick (Duluth), Messmer (Green Bay), Moreau (St. Hyacinth), Mullen (Erie), O’Connor (Peterborough), O’Hara (Scranton), Wigger (Newark), and Zardetti (St. Cloud).

145 long-held desire for such an organization. Some remained guarded, given their understanding of the amount of capital and business acumen such an undertaking required. Meagher included six archbishops and bishops from outside the United States, but only one from the New York ecclesiastical province, Bishop of Ogdensburg.99

Meagher, promoting Satolli as the association’s major supporter, requested his approval to incorporate the association. He minimized the Panic of 1893’s impact on the plan but conveyed a sense of urgency: His duties in Cazenovia obstructed the firm’s inauguration.

Without introducing his troubles with Ludden, he asked Satolli to relieve him of his parish duties with conditions and grant him faculties in New York City and surrounding dioceses.100

Satolli, then in the midst of reconciling with Corrigan, approached Ludden concerning

Meagher. He summarized the association and, understanding the financial and business skills required, inquired whether Meagher possessed the qualities necessary to make the firm a success.101 A lacuna in the documentation prevents clarification of what occurred next. Early

1894 correspondence indicates a significant change in Satolli’s approach to Meagher.

Francesco Satolli: The Arbiter

In January 1894, Satolli advised Meagher to request a year’s leave of absence directly from Ludden. Meagher and Ludden met and by the former’s account the conversation evolved into a diatribe. Ludden brought up past court cases and requested his mission’s financial

99. Meagher to Satolli, August 7, 1893, fol. 40, ASVSY. 100. Ibid. 101. Satolli to Ludden, August 24, 1893, fols. 50-53, ASVSY; Wister describes the reconciliation between Satolli and Corrigan, occuring on the Feast of the Assumption, August 15, 1893: Wister, "The Establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States of America: The Satolli Mission, 1892-1896," 188-199.

146

statement. Considering Ludden’s request reasonable, Satolli desired its resolution before

Meagher proceeded with the association.102

Meagher’s response turned Satolli against him and the association. He submitted a

financial report to the diocese but without paying the parish’s required cathedraticum, an annual

fee to support the diocese. Blaming Ludden for his parishioners’ lack of contributions, he

increased his request to a three-year leave of absence. When Ludden again refused, Meagher

pleaded with Satolli to intervene. However, he strained their relationship by proceeding with the

first printing of The Christian Press and sent Satolli a copy. The paper advertised the apostolic

delegate as its president, published bishops’ endorsements, and attempted to recruit priests.103

Satolli refused to intercede with Ludden, expressed shock at Meagher’s actions, and spurned the publication effort:

From my first corresponding with you in regard to your "Association" it has never been my intention to be the president in any sense of your publication conceived in that form as it has begun to appear; and if you look at my letters you will not find a single word that would make you come to this supposition. I have been therefore astonished at seeing in the 1st issue of "The Christian Press" my name connected with your work as its President. … The contents of the 1st issue are not such as to correspond to the idea of a serious and interesting publication.104

Meagher ignored Satolli’s request to obtain a leave of absence from Ludden before

proceeding and in March 1894 established the Christian Press Association (CPA). Showing more

defiance, he announced in Publishers Weekly that the association was “governed by Mgr. Satolli,

the Apostolic Delegate.” By June, two months before dissolution proceedings began for Kehoe’s

102. Meagher to Satolli, January 6, 1894, fols. 14-15, ASVSY; Satolli notes, January 9, 1894, fol. 15v, ASVSY. 103. Meagher to Ludden (copy), January 18, 1894, fol. 30, ASVSY; Meagher to Satolli, January 25, 1894, fol. 31, ASVSY; Meagher to Satolli, February 9, 1894, fols. 34-35, ASVSY. 104. Satolli to Meagher, February 10, 1894, fol. 36, ASVSY.

147

CPS, CPA incorporated with Meagher, Frederick W. Harting, and John Talbot Smith as

directors.105

In the fall of 1894, Meagher, though Ludden had again denied him a leave, forced the

issue by abruptly leaving St. James for a six-month to one-year vacation and requested Satolli’s intervention. In his latest plea to Ludden, he claimed to need a vacation for health reasons; however, the impetus remained the association, as he explained to Ludden: “It is absolutely

necessary for me to take a rest before launching into the work the Papal Delegate has appointed

me to.”106 Satolli, in response, requested Meagher submit an account of his dealings. Meagher

sent a formal report, composed by a canon lawyer, recounting his actions, truthfully stating

Satolli merely gave approbation. Regarding Ludden, he “considered his non-interference as a

virtual consent to the project and a sign of his willingness to act conformably to your

Excellency’s published letter of commendation.” After describing the association’s growth, he

continued to espouse its grand designs, and reported ongoing negotiations to “buy out the establishment” of CPS.107

While the New York Supreme Court “reserved [the Manual’s plates and copyright] for

special reasons, at private sale” during most of 1895, Satolli and Corrigan better comprehended

Meagher’s scheme. Ludden summarized Meagher’s past and requested Satolli investigate the

mission at St. James. He explained his refusal of Meagher’s leave: “I am thoroughly convinced

that the scheme, as far as he is concerned, in New York will fail and that he will then return

105. "The Christian Press Association," Publishers Weekly, March 3, 1894, 388-389; Certificate of Incorporation of The Christian Press Association Publishing Company, June 12, 1894, 146/1894C, Certificates of Incorporation, NYCC; "Newly Incorporated Companies," New York Times, June 9, 1894. 106. Meagher to Ludden (copy), October 19, 1894, fol. 75, ASVSY; Meagher to Ludden (copy), October 22, 1894, fols. 75v, 76, ASVSY; Meagher to Satolli, October 22, 1894, fols. 74-76, ASVSY. 107. Satolli to Meagher, November 3, 1894, fol. 83, ASVSY; Rev. D. Moyes (for Meagher) to Satolli, n.d., late 1894 or early 1895, fols. 62-66, ASVSY.

148

under greater dissatisfaction to Cazenovia.” In early April 1894, Satolli, intent on Meagher

relinquishing his publishing interests or face investigation, invited him, then in the midst of

obtaining CPS’s plates (except for the Manual), to visit him in Washington, DC.108 During their

meeting Satolli introduced his ultimatum. Meanwhile, Bernard O’Reilly informed Corrigan

about the new publisher’s practices. O’Reilly, drawn into Meagher’s scheme, arrived in

Cazenovia as the association’s activities mounted. He maintained good relations with Corrigan

and reported an amateurish operation:

I presumed on Your Grace's permission to accept good Father Meagher's pressing invitation and come to work side by side with him for a few weeks. I am presumed to do certain work, which, all of a sudden, is printed & published without having revised or corrected it. This method of proceeding must naturally prove fatal to any kind of literary enterprise.109

Satolli’s task proved difficult; Meagher would not give up the association nor, it appears,

did the delegate insist on an investigation. Ludden provided more documentation, increased his

complaints, and sent Rev. James Lynch, familiar with Meagher’s case, to Washington, DC,

reiterating “the newspaper scheme in New York cannot be a success under his management and

character.” Meagher frantically reported to Satolli that Ludden threatened an investigation and

demanded his immediate departure. He included a list of conditions for his leave, “finding that I

am called by God to establish a Catholic Publishing House for the church, and wishing to be free

from parish duties.”110

While Meagher desperately attempted to obtain Satolli’s assistance, O’Reilly abandoned

the cause:

108. Ludden to Satolli, March 25, 1895, fols. 84-86, ASVSY; Satolli to Ludden, March 30, 1895, fol. 88, ASVSY; Meagher to Satolli, April 1, 1895, fol. 89, ASVSY; Ludden to Satolli, April 3, 1895, fols. 92-93, ASVSY. 109. O'Reilly to Corrigan, April 3, 1895, G9, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 110. Meagher to Satolli, April 9, 1895, fols. 104-105, ASVSY.

149

I am in sure perplexity about my connection with Father J. L. Meagher of Cazenovia, & the great printing & publishing in which he is the great mover. … I consented to be nominally editor of the Christian Press, a weekly, of which a few numbers have appeared in this City; & I was under the impression when so consenting, that Fr. Meagher had obtained the approbation of the Ordinary. Finding it is not so, I beg Your Grace's for my fault in this, & promise to have nothing more to do with the Paper. Do, my dear Lord & friend, advise me on this. Mgr. Farley looks with disfavor on this Christian Press Association Publishing Co., & wishes me to have nothing to do with it.111

Satolli arbitrated a settlement between Meagher and the Diocese of Syracuse, a process—

or, as Ludden predicted, a “whirlwind”—which took more than six months. From mid-April to

late June 1895, Satolli negotiated with Meagher and the diocese’s vicar general, John J.

Kennedy, hoping to conclude before Ludden’s return from his ad limina visit to the Holy See.112

After agreement, Meagher ignored requests to sign and in August added to his demands. Satolli fumed that the “honor of this Delegation would be compromised by changes and procrastination.”113 Meagher and Ludden finally met in September, prompting another appeal to

Satolli, who concluded Meagher’s “present manner of acting is too puerile and insincere to be tolerated any longer.”114 By mid-October 1895, the negotiations came to a merciful end. Meagher

resigned as St. James’ pastor and remained a diocesan priest of Syracuse “absent with the

Bishop’s permission.”115

111. O'Reilly to Corrigan, May 7, 1895, G9, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 112. Satolli to Meagher, April 23, 1895, fols. 117-118, ASVSY; Meagher to Satolli, June 12, 1895, fols. 119- 122, ASVSY; Satolli to Kennedy, June 16, 1895, fols. 124-125, ASVSY; Kennedy to Satolli, June 27, 1895, fol. 126, ASVSY. 113. Meagher to Satolli, August 2, 1895, fol. 130-132, ASVSY; Satolli to Meagher, August 6, 1895, fol. 133, ASVSY. 114. Meagher to Satolli, September 24, 1895, fol. 134, ASVSY; Satolli to Meagher, September 27, 1895, fol. 142, ASVSY. 115. Ludden/Meagher Agreement, October 10, 1895, fols. 149-150, ASVSY; Ludden to Satolli, October 12, 1895, fol. 147, ASVSY.

150

Calls for Revision

As Ludden and Meagher neared resolution of their conflict and with the prayer book still

“reserved for special reasons, at private sale,” the US archbishops at their seventh annual meeting on October 2, 1895 in Washington, DC, discussed for the first time the possibility of revising the Baltimore Catechism and the Manual of Prayers. While not cited as prompting their discussion, dissolution of the books’ primary publisher required some episcopal response. Its demise provides one explanation for initiating another episcopal publishing endeavor.

In the meeting Gibbons proposed creating a prayer book abridgement. The archbishops approved and again placed him in charge of the effort. A discussion ensued advising the

“uniformity in the translations of Papal documents in the prayers in general use.” The statement does not explicitly mention the Roman liturgical books, and, because “no action was taken,” the meaning remains unclear. The term “Papal documents” may refer to the Raccolta, which US

Jesuits translated into English and published in 1878.116 Available to Woodman when compiling

the prayer book, the few Manual prayers appearing in the Raccolta did not use the Jesuit’s

translation. In the end, Gibbons’s idea of an abridged edition served as the primary impetus for a

prayer book revision. For the Baltimore Catechism, the archbishops agreed that “in its present

form … [it] seems unpopular.” Gibbons delegated each archbishop to consult with his suffragans

on the advisability of revision or starting anew another version.117

Meagher, relieved from parish responsibilities, having received an initial agreement from

the court-appointed receiver as previously cited, purchased the Manual of Prayers on February

116. The Raccolta; or, Collection of Prayers and Good Works (Woodstock, MD: , 1878). 117. John J. Kain (secretary), Minutes of Archbishops meeting, October 2, 1895, 124/2, American Hierarchy Annual Meetings, 1890-1969, ACUA.

151

29, 1896. Gibbons, charged with revising the prayer book in October 1895, learned about

Meagher’s involvement from Corrigan nine months later in the summer of 1896.118 Gibbons understood Meagher as another Manual publisher but, after conferring with Charles Murphy of the John Murphy Company, learned where he obtained the plates. He recommended Corrigan find another publisher to purchase the book’s plates from Meagher:

I may venture to suggest to Your Grace that it would be a great advantage to your archdiocese and a relief to yourself, if the plates of the Manual of Prayers were in possession of some New York Catholic Publishing House that would possess your entire confidence. This is in my judgment the best solution, even if the Plates were to cost a high figure.119

As their correspondence reveals, Gibbons and Corrigan knew little of Meagher’s protracted Manual purchase. Maintaining the episcopal laissez-faire approach to the Manual and unwilling to initiate a new publishing effort, Corrigan abandoned the prayer book. “It would be useless, I fear, to ask any New York Catholic Publisher to buy the plates, at this late day, as they declined to do so when the Manual was about to be issued, and the sales undoubtedly most promising.” Corrigan assumed Woodman owned the copyright and recommended he sue

Meagher.120 Instead of recruiting an alternative and reliable New York publisher, Corrigan proposed shutting down the unreliable one.

Charles Murphy understood the Manual’s business situation and took advantage. Two months after the CPS board filed for dissolution he placed a full-page advertisement in the

September 1894 Publishers Weekly, highlighting the Manual and availability of new works as produced in the “best binderies in England.” Targeting New York booksellers, he emphasized

118. Gibbons to Corrigan, July 1, 1896, G15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 119. Gibbons to Corrigan, July 3, 1896, G15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 120. Corrigan to Gibbons, July 6, 1896, 94P1, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

152

Corrigan’s “special supervision” of the Manual.121 Murphy, aware of Meagher’s purchase and

overall publishing scheme, discovered CPA violated the CPS/Murphy business contract by

selling the prayer book for less than the agreed upon $1.25 retail price. He explained to Corrigan

why sales had not met expectations. Yet, his company still maintained an interest in the book and planned to file suit in civil court. Murphy first consulted Corrigan, not for Meagher’s sake but because CPA involved other clergymen:

Unfortunately through the vicissitudes of the business world the book has not realized our ambitions. Had Mr. Lawrence Kehoe lived who was a practical man of affairs we feel confident that the "Manual of Prayers" would to-day be the most commonly used prayer- book on the market, but, unfortunately, after his death the business passed into other hands. … Before taking steps that might be disagreeable to the reverend gentlemen composing "The Christian Press Assoc." I respectfully beg an interview with Your Grace that I might explain more clearly our position, as well as attempt to prove how the success of the book is hampered by being in the hands of the Rev. Father Meagher.122

A Manual Lawsuit

After meeting with Corrigan in August 1896, Charles Murphy filed a complaint with the

New York Supreme Court on October 23, 1896. He claimed CPA, aware of the June 24, 1889,

CPS/Murphy contract, purchased the Manual’s plates and copyright and sold the book “at the retail price of seventy-five cents a copy, and at the net or wholesale price of fifty cents a copy,” violating the agreement. The firm demanded the court restrain CPA from selling the Manual for less than the agreed prices.123

121. Complete Line of Catholic Prayer-Books for the Season of 1894-95, advertisement, John Murphy, Publishers Weekly, September 29, 1894, 344. 122. Murphy to Corrigan, July 28, 1896, G12, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 123. Summons & Complaint, Frank K. Murphy vs. Christian Press Association Publishing Company, October 23, 1896, GA1473/1899, Equity Archives, NYCC, 2-6 (nos. 6-22).

153

CPA eventually answered Murphy’s complaint on November 29, 1897, thirteen months

after the case opened. The firm claimed the Manual purchase did not entail honoring the

CPS/Murphy contract. As a separate defense, CPA claimed the agreement illegal, resulting in a

monopoly restraining trade and maintaining high prices. Moreover, their sole Manual edition, a

rubricated version, did not qualify as “plainly-bound,” the edition cited in the agreement.

Meagher sold a higher quality prayer book compared to Murphy’s simple version—and at a

lower price.124 Publishers Weekly reported “a case of interest to Roman Catholics,” claiming

Gibbons had directed Woodman to assign the Manual’s copyright to CPS, and Satolli had

directed Meagher to consult US bishops regarding CPA’s formation.125

Testimonies during the trial on April 25, 1898, revealed the CPS/Murphy contract

prolonged the prayer book’s sale during CPS’s dissolution. As the receiver, Angelo testified that

the subject of the agreement arose when the Manual’s purchase was discussed, and Meagher sought the advice of counsel. Desiring to provide affordable books, he estimated the $1.25 retail price resulted in a 700 percent profit, based solely on manufacturing costs without calculating business expenses (Murphy paid $2,700 for the plates) and that of sales and marketing.126

CPA declared the CPS/Murphy contract void because it prevented other publishers from selling the Manual. The company claimed the book’s official nature prompted anticipating significant sales. Such an argument required the civil court to interpret church law. The firm asserted the Third Plenary Council regulated church discipline, including the prayer forms used

124. Defendant Answer, Frank K. Murphy vs. Christian Press Association Publishing Company, November 29, 1897, GA1473/1899, Equity Archives, NYCC, 19-23 (nos. 74-91). 125. "Suit to Maintain the Price of a Catholic Prayer-Book," Publishers Weekly, March 3, 1898. 126. Case and Exceptions, Frank K. Murphy vs. Christian Press Association Publishing Company, April 25, 1898, GA1473/1899, Equity Archives, NYCC, 31-72 (nos. 123-288).

154

by church members which bound ten to eleven million US Catholics to use the council’s prayer book. CPA submitted Meagher’s English translations of the council’s prayer book decrees as

evidence. Under cross-examination Meagher was challenged to cite a specific charge in conciliar

decrees requiring the laity to use the Manual. In reply, he cited article 220, commanding the

submission of prayer books to bishops for examination, and article 223, requiring the Manual’s

review in a way similar to the catechism. He claimed the bishops obligated Catholics to use the

catechism; this obligation extended to the prayer book. Pressed further, he admitted the council

merely suggested Catholics use the latter. “It is the same as a man is advised not to burn wood in

cold weather when he can use coal, because coal is more useful.”127

The court decided in favor of Murphy. Meagher’s Manual purchase assumed the

CPS/Murphy contract. Further, the court judged “plainly-bound copy” referred to the “cheapest

copy” and not to a particular book edition. Meagher appealed the decision, and the court

transferred the case to the Appellate Division in .

After hearing the appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision on March

7, 1899. The judge explained the implications of purchasing a copyright by equating the latter to

property. When purchasing real estate, the buyer assumes its restrictions, and other entities with

an acquired interest, while not having title, maintain their stake. Meagher’s purchase included the

Manual’s agreement, and Murphy, while not the owner, maintained interest in the copyright.128

The appellate court considered the question of “plainly-bound copies” the most

significant and opted for a sensible judgment, stating CPS and Murphy “never contemplated …

127. Ibid., 57-63 (nos. 227-252). 128. Marcus T. Hun, "Murphy v. Christian Press Assn. Pub. Co.: Second Department, March Term, 1899," in Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Albany, NY: Banks & Company, 1899), 427-429.

155

they should be at liberty to sell handsomer editions of the publication for a less price than that

stipulated for the plainly-bound copies.”129

As the court made clear, restraint of trade “has no application to the publication of a copyrighted book. The very object of copyrights and of letters patent is to give monopolies. This constitutes their value.”130 The court differentiated between agreements protecting a single

product from those protecting broader product lines. In its opinion, publishers could monopolize

selling the Manual of Prayers. Protected by law, nonetheless, they would still face competition

in the Catholic prayer book market. However, an agreement among publishers to sell all Catholic

prayer books at a certain price would constitute restraint of trade:

We suppose that the author of a new geometry [book] may fix the price at which he will sell his work at any sum, or arrange with others for its publication and sale at the stipulated price. But if all the publishers of books on geometry were to combine and agree not to sell any publication on that subject except for a stipulated price, the contract would be in restraint of trade and void.131

The Manual, lacking distribution and sales, did not benefit from the irony of Catholics

engaged in a civil lawsuit over a prayer book. As a result of the lawsuit, CPA later advertised the

rubricated edition for $1.25, providing a better value than Murphy’s $1.25 black and white

version.132 CPA and Murphy, despite a contentious relationship, remained bound by the Manual

agreement, preventing either from expanding the number of publishers without the other’s

approval and maintaining the prayer book’s base price of $1.25.

129. Ibid., 429. 130. Ibid., 430. 131. Ibid. The appellate ruling in Murphy vs. Christian Press Association obtained precedential value, cited by numerous subsequent court cases. Contemporary law school journal articles refer to the case on topics related to digital media. 132. Just Out! A New Edition of the "Manual of Prayers", advertisement, Christian Press Association, The Ecclesiastical Review, 39 no. 5, 1908, 600+.

156

The Manual in the Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century the Manual never achieved widespread distribution, unable to

recover from the debacle of the 1890s. Despite John Murphy Company’s attempts to promote the

bishops’ book in the twentieth century, the Catholic prayer book market changed, demanding

revisions. Without owning the Manual’s copyright and plates, the company deferred the effort

until 1930.

The Vernacular Missal

On January 25, 1897, Pope Leo XIII, in the apostolic constitution Officiorum ac

Munerum, voided the Holy See’s earlier prohibitions regarding books. Many interpreted the

constitution to relax translation requirements regarding Roman liturgical books.133 After

Officiorum ac Munerum an individual bishop’s imprimatur enabled the printing of vernacular

missals—inaugurating a new genre of liturgical prayer book to meet the demands of a growing

reading public. Paul Bussard cites forty-seven editions published from 1900 to 1937.134

The Manual of Prayers, a compilation drawing from liturgical books and non-liturgical

devotions, required an abridgement to compete in the new liturgical book market. In surveying

the liturgical movement’s emergence in the United States, Keith Pecklers notes the laity’s use of the vernacular missal increased lay participation in the Mass. The movement’s emphasis on the

Eucharist, at the expense of other sacraments and the Divine Office, contributed to its success. Its pioneers decided “church members would first need to get acquainted with the Missal before

133. Bussard, 36. 134. Ibid., 39.

157

familiarizing themselves with the Breviary.”135 They introduced lay participation in the church’s

liturgy focusing solely on the Mass, as opposed to the Manual’s comprehensive approach.

Archbishop John Farley

Following Corrigan’s death in 1902, the Holy See elevated to

archbishop of New York. Farley previously served as Cardinal McCloskey’s secretary and

Corrigan’s vicar general and auxiliary bishop. Having known well his two predecessors, he

modeled himself after McCloskey.136

Farley disapproved of Meagher, perhaps stemming from the latter’s 1883 misuse of

McCloskey’s imprimatur. In 1892, he voted against Meagher’s CPA New York-diocesan-scheme

and in 1895 advised O’Reilly to dissociate from CPA. In 1905, he denied the imprimatur for

Meagher’s book, Tragedy of Calvary, which the Jesuit monthly The Messenger dismissed as

ahistorical and insulting to educated readers, and The Catholic Univerity Bulletin labeled “a

disgrace to the Catholic Press.”137

In 1906, the John Murphy Company, almost certainly considered the Manual’s most

reliable publisher, embarked on a marketing campaign for the book. Charles Murphy requested

Farley’s endorsement, calling attention to the firm’s regular payment of royalties and successful

lawsuit against CPA. Murphy noted Meagher ignored paying the New York archbishop the

135. Pecklers, The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955, 73, 49- 52. 136. Florence D. Cohalan, A Popular History of the Archdiocese of New York (Yonkers, NY: United States Catholic Historical Society, 1983), 179; Thomas J. Shelley, The Bicentennial History of the Archdiocese of New York, 1808-2008 (Strasbourg: Editions du Signe, 2007), 419-420. 137. Meagher to Farley, January 11, 1905, I8, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY; "The Reader," The Messenger, September 1, 1905, 529-530; H.A. Poels, "Book Reviews," The Catholic University Bulletin 12, no. 1 (1906): 129- 30; Jas. L. Meagher, The Tragedy of Calvary or The Minute Details of Christ's Life from Morning till the Resurrection and Ascension (New York: Christian Press Association, 1905).

158 required royalties. While Murphy did not aim to fight someone else’s battles, the company intended to inflict further damage on CPA.138

Meagher, having previously sought support from Corrigan and Satolli, exhausted his credibility and squandered CPS’s inventory.139 He then looked to new directions to rescue CPA’s business. Pursuant to Farley’s advice, Meagher arranged to have the topic placed on the agenda of the archbishops’ 1908 annual meeting. The latter’s minutes merely state tersely "the petition of the publishing house known as the Christian Press Association was referred to the Archbishop of New York."140 Subsequently, Farley rejected Meagher’s grand design (again), with claims of its divine origin and landmark historical role. Meagher rebuked Farley for holding a grudge and being risk averse. He considered himself the US equivalent of Jacques-Paul Migne (1800-1875), the French priest known for publishing hundreds of volumes of Latin and Greek fathers, despite contention with the trade and church authorities. Meagher viewed Farley as Migne’s lesser known superior. He never mentioned the Manual of Prayers, indicating its lack of importance within his overall scheme.141

138. Murphy to Rev. James V. Lewis (Farley's secretary), April 20, 1906, I9, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY; F.K. Murphy to Chas. A. Murphy, May 15, 1906, I9, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY; Murphy to Farley, May 15, 1906, I9, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY; Murphy to Rev. Patrick J. Hayes (Chancellor), May 16, 1906, I9, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY. 139. Meagher continued to claim Satolli’s patronage, reporting Pope Pius X appointed Satolli the association's “Protector.” See "Pope Commends Catholic Association," New York Times, August 9, 1907; The Catholic press continued to dismiss Meagher’s books. The Catholic Word called Meagher's How Christ Said the First Mass, a "farrago of legends." See "New Books," Catholic World, May 1907; Jas. L. Meagher, How Christ Said the First Mass, or The Lord's (New York: Christian Press Association, 1906); Peoria Bishop John Lancaster Spalding attempted to convince Daniel Hudson, CSC, editor of Notre Dame's Ave Maria, to print Spalding's best books, claiming Meagher "immediately proceeded to bury them." Spalding to Hudson, February 8, 1910, X-4-g, Daniel E. Hudson Papers (CHUD), UNDA. 140. John J. Glennon (secretary), The Annual Meeting of the Archbishops of the United States was held at Catholic University, May 8, 1908, 124/2, American Hierarchy Annual Meetings, 1890-1969, ACUA. 141. Meagher to Farley, May 17, 1909, I45, Folder 5, Cardinal Farley Papers, AANY.

159

The Manual’s Copyright Renewal

The US Copyright Act of 1831 granted authors exclusive publication rights for twenty-

eight years, with an optional fourteen-year renewal period. The Manual’s final copyright,

obtained in 1889, would lapse in 1917 without an extension. The Copyright Act of 1909

increased the renewal period to twenty-eight years, potentially giving CPA exclusive rights to the

Manual until 1945.

The multiple copyrights granted for the Manual complicates its publication history. In

October 1888, Woodman registered a copyright for a Manual subtitled: Prepared and Enjoined

by Order of the Third Plenary Council. In June 1889, he registered a copyright for one subtitled

Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council. According to Library of

Congress records, Kehoe submitted works associated with each on July 16, 1889, and December

23, 1889, respectively. Since a work cannot possess more than one copyright, and thereby more

than one owner, the Manual’s copyrights require explanation.

A derivative work, one substantially based upon the original yet significantly different, such as an abridgement, translation, or new edition, justifies another copyright; but, changing a book’s title does not. The “enjoined” copyright registration, occurring during the prayer book’s review, provides a plausible explanation, if one considers the final “published” version a significant alteration.

Whatever prompted two copyrights, Woodman’s “enjoined” copyright reassignment and renewal undermined Meagher’s ownership. Angelo, the CPS receiver, assigned the “enjoined” copyright for the “full end of the term.” However, CPS, Murphy, and CPA published the prayer book with the “published” subtitle, and the agreement between CPS and Murphy explicitly titles

160

the book as such, suggesting the later copyright the proper one. Before either’s expiration,

Woodman, then pastor of the University of California’s in Berkley, California,

reassigned the “enjoined” copyright to Gibbons for the remainder of its term and for any

renewals.142 The former then promptly applied for the “enjoined” copyright’s twenty-eight year

renewal.143 Consequently, Murphy’s Manual publications after 1916 include the “enjoined”

subtitle.

Murphy’s acquisition of the Manual’s copyright further hindered Meagher’s prayer book

sales, not to mention CPA’s overall viability. In January 1917, the John Murphy Company

informed Meagher about Woodman’s copyright reassignment and its grant of exclusive Manual

publishing rights. The company did not intend to shut down Meagher’s publication but

demanded he cease publishing the rubricated version, threatening a lawsuit. Meagher appealed to

Gibbons, claiming Murphy limited the Manual’s dissemination by not allowing a lower price,

resulting in CPA’s meager sales of about 100 copies per year and preventing the sales of

“millions of copies.” He vowed to defend CPA in court and publicize “the whole history of the

Manual,” warning Gibbons not to involve himself with Murphy lest “a stigma would rest on your

good name, and follow you to the grave.”144

On June 14, 1917, the John Murphy Company again sued CPA, this time in federal court for US copyright infringement. Murphy did not address the conflicting copyrights, but CPA’s response provided a plausible explanation: CPS submitted a corrected title page in June 1889 and

142. Copyright Office of the United States, Assignments of Copyrights, vol. 55 (1914), 388-389 (no. 376, recorded June 10, 1914). 143. Copyright Office of the United States, Catalogue of Copyright Entries: Part 1, Group 1, Books, vol. 12 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1916), 56 (no. 329). The copyright office accepted applications for renewal one year before expiration. Woodman applied early, and the office renewed the "enjoined" copyright, expiring on October 16, 1916, five days into the application process on October 21, 1915. 144. Meagher to Gibbons, January 19, 1917, 118J4, Gibbons Papers, AAB.

161 two books in July with the updated title. Claiming CPS submitted no works with the “enjoined” title, the “published” copyright prevailed. The court dismissed the case since Murphy, not owning the copyright, had no right to sue.145 Murphy obtained Gibbons’s copyright reassignment and sued CPA again on April 25, 1918. Meagher reported to the court “[CPA], without funds or experience qualifying it to conduct litigation, discontinued the sale of said book.” Because “the general use of said book had been defeated” due to its high price, CPA allowed the “published” copyright to expire on June 21, 1917, since the Manual “belonged to the whole Church.” With no further action, the court dismissed the case.146 When Meagher died on May 8, 1920, CPA ceased operations, and Murphy remained the Manual’s sole publisher.147

The Murphy Manual

The John Murphy Company, the Manual’s copyright owner, published a “new edition” in

1930. The bishops’ national organization, the National Catholic Welfare Council/Conference

(NCWC), established in 1919, oversaw the Baltimore Catechism’s revision in 1935-1941.148

NCWC records indicate no involvement in the 1930 Manual update.149 Murphy did not compile

145. John Murphy v. Christian Press Association, June 14, 1917, Case: E14-204, RG 21, US District Court, Southern District of New York, NARKC. Archibald Cox, Sr., famed copyright lawyer and father of the Watergate special prosecutor, represented Meagher and CPA. 146. Copyright Office of the United States, Assignments of Copyrights, vol. 73 (1918), 375-376 (recorded April 11, 1918); John Murphy v. Christian Press Association, April 25, 1918, Case: E15-106, RG 21, US District Court, Southern District of New York, NARKC. 147. "Rev. Dr. Meagher Dead: Author of Many Religous Works and Publisher Was 71," New York Times, May 9, 1920. 148. Connell, 191-198; Timothy Michael Dolan, Some Seed Fell on Good Ground: The Life of Edwin V. O'Hara (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992), 143-144, 156-163. The NCWC created an Episcopal Committee of the CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) in 1934 which oversaw the catechism's revision. 149. Douglas Slawson claims NCWC’s first fifteen years (1919-1934) a “hand-to-mouth existence,” prioritizing its activities. Douglas J. Slawson, The Foundation and First Decade of the National Catholic Welfare Council (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992), 69, for detailed financial woes, see 141, 150, 181, 187, and 278-280. Searches applied to NCWC records at ACUA found nothing related to the Manual of Prayers.

162

an abridgement as Gibbons sought thirty-five years earlier or as necessary to compete in the

Catholic missal market. Rather, they produced a larger 832-page Manual of Prayers.150

Qualifying as an extensive revision, the US Copyright Office granted the company a copyright

for the book.151

The new Manual incorporated necessary updates in the Roman liturgical books, most notably the Roman Breviary approved by Pope Pius X in 1911.152 The compilers added “Blessing

of Throats” and litanies of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (approved by the Holy See in 1899), St.

Joseph (1909), and St. Teresa. For the Epistles and Gospels in the Proper of the Mass, the

compilers replaced Kenrick’s US Douay-Rheims translation, reverting to Challoner’s version.

Most content remained unchanged, including its devotions and instructions, many derived from

the English Garden of the Soul and Golden Manual.

Murphy never became a major national publisher. A ranking of Catholic publishing

houses, based on number of new titles issued from 1930 to 1942, lists Murphy as twelfth,

averaging less than one new title each year. Moreover, the company did not specialize in prayer

books. The study lists Benziger, Bruce, and Kenedy as notable publishers of “devotional

literature.”153 The company’s ledgers from 1941 to 1943 reveal a nationwide customer base and

significant Manual sales.154 In 1943, New York-based P. J. Kenedy & Sons, possessing a prayer

150. A Manual of Prayers for the Use of The Catholic Laity: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, New ed. (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1930). 151. Copyright Office of the United States, Catalogue of Copyright Entries: Part 1, Group 1 Books Including List of Renewals (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1932), 2283 (no. 14643). 152. Stanislaus Campbell, From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office, 1964-1971 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 16-19. Campbell's table on p. 19 shows the reform's revised distribution of psalms. 153. Mary Luella, "Catholic Commercial Publishing in the United States," in Catholic Library Practice, ed. David Martin (Portland, OR: University of Portland Press, 1947), 223, 227. 154. John Murphy, Account books, 1926-43, MS 997, Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, MD.

163 book publishing history and known for purchasing stock from declining Catholic book businesses, such as Dunigan, Sadlier, Cunningham, and, notably, Wiltzius’s Official Catholic

Directory, purchased the John Murphy Company.155 Kenedy sold the Manual of Prayers in the decades preceding the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical reforms.156

The Manual’s Administration

The Manual of Prayers, a late nineteenth-century US liturgical prayer book intended for the nation’s Catholics, required oversight to ensure its ongoing publication and distribution. CPS did not anticipate changes in the book trade, reversed course, and dissolved, significantly impairing the Manual’s dissemination. The book’s initial appearance, as then thought, would lead other publishers to produce abridged editions. Murphy assumed the role of most reliable publisher. Bound by the CPS agreement and not owning the book’s copyright and plates, the

Murphy firm could not create revisions or enlist other publishers. CPA, with national goals beyond measure, could not create new ventures. Meagher, although bolstered by CPS’s high quality books, lacked credibility and business acumen and never achieved prominence. His company’s poor episcopal relations prevented revisions, and he did not recruit other publishers for the bishops’ national prayer book. While the prayer book remained available until Vatican II, surviving the early incompetence of its owners and generating some revenues for Meagher and the John Murphy Company, it never achieved its intended prominence.

155. Robert C. Healey, A Catholic Book Chronicle: The Story of P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1826-1951 (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1951), 29-30, 37-39, 45-46, 52-53. 156. A Manual of Prayers for the Use of The Catholic Laity: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, New ed. (New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1930). The author purchased a Kenedy version, whose "Table of Moveable Feasts" begins with the year of 1951, indicating an early 1950s printing.

164

Given the US bishops’ role, the principal responsibility for the Manual lies not with CPS,

Murphy, or CPA, but with the bishops in general and Gibbons and Corrigan in particular. The

Third Plenary Council introduced national initiatives, including The Catholic University of

America (CUA), the Baltimore Catechism, and the Manual of Prayers. CUA benefited from its

incorporation and subsequent administration. For the national books, ownership resided with

their copyrights, initially submitted by Bishop Spalding and the Paulist Woodman respectively,

but the archbishops’ annual meetings irregularly addressed their administration.157 Considering how many decades passed before their publication, one might expect a sustained effort to manage their distribution. Gibbons and Corrigan’s casual usage of copyright demonstrates their lack of attention. Copyright’s importance becomes clear when one bears in mind the church’s considers it church property or a temporal good.158

In their nineteenth-century councils, the US bishops established the Church’s canonical

framework for fast-growing Catholic populations. Securing the title to property for churches and

schools according to the requirements of state laws absorbed their attention. Many US states did

not grant property ownership to the local bishop as a corporation sole but, influenced by

Protestant approaches, required congregations to form a corporation with a board of trustees. The councils proposed various arrangements for the bishop to acquire temporal or church goods.

After the Civil War, US states began to recognize the church’s form of organization. By the

157. A US episcopal organization emerges in 1918 with the National Catholic War Council, replaced by the National Catholic Welfare Council in 1919, "Conference" substituted for "Council" in 1922. Slawson, 30-33, 62-69, 187. 158. John J. Coughlin, Canon Law: A Comparative Study with Anglo-American Legal Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 97.

165

nineteenth-century’s end, many states accommodated the church’s canonical structure for the

administration of its property.159

In the Murphy lawsuit, the New York Supreme Court associated the Manual’s copyright to private property and the granting of monopolies. L. Ray Patterson argues that copyrights resemble legal possession, but statutory monopoly explains their nature. While one may own physical property in perpetuity, a copyright merely grants an author a set of rights including in the late nineteenth century exclusive publication rights for a limited period and protection from others creating derivative works such as abridgements or translations.160 More importantly the US

government grants these rights to promote learning—copyright’s primary purpose enshrined in

the US Constitution. Granting a monopoly for a limited period motivates authors, thereby

generating an increase in books or other works of knowledge.161

The catechism’s and prayer book’s copyrights enabled statutory monopolies, ensuring the books’ integrity and orthodoxy and protecting the council’s credibility. Lack of a copyright would have allowed derivative works and enabled the initial problem the council attempted to solve: an uneven quality of prayer books for the laity. US copyright law assisted the bishops in their teaching role.

While nineteenth-century councils aimed to secure the church’s title for physical property, the archbishops after the Third Plenary Council neglected to address the latter’s conciliar publications in the complex—and evolving—intellectual property domain. They

159. , La Formazione della Chiesa Cattolica negli Stati Uniti d'America attraverso l'Attività Sinodale: Con Particolare Riguardo al Problema Dell'Amministrazione dei Beni Ecclesiastici (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1970), 229-230; Coughlin, 124-129. 160. L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users' Rights (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991), 56-73. The 1841 Folsom vs. Marsh case famously introduced the "fair-use" principle and determined abridgements, and such, violated the principle. 161. Ibid., 49-50.

166

underestimated the importance of book management for church efforts. During the council,

bishops discussed copyrights but decreed nothing. During and after the Baltimore Catechism’s

formation, disagreement persisted on its copyright. Kehoe proposed one, arguing it guaranteed uniformity and facilitated royalty collection.162 Some bishops argued the council fathers did not

desire a copyright, claiming it favored certain publishers, prevented wide dissemination, or made

the church appear avaricious. When the New York province’s bishops considered the Baltimore

Catechism’s possible revision, resulting from the archbishops’ 1895 meeting, they recommended

not securing a copyright:

Let there be one catechism with no patent or proprietary rights to syndicates or publishers and then the enterprising traffic in this necessity of spiritual life will cease.”163

There’s no catechism that is copyrighted will meet with my approval or regard. … I see that catechisms are being sent around copyrighted. This means that someone is to turn an honest penny. This means also monopoly and will lead to bad feelings.164

[The Provincial bishops] are of the opinion that this new Catechism should not be copyrighted. It will be the duty of the Ordinaries of dioceses to see that no other than the approved Catechism is used.165

A better argument for the acquisition of copyrights emerges when viewing them as

church goods protecting the bishops’ teaching role. In addition, it helps to understand the

necessity of ongoing development. Stewardship of church goods includes their administration,

the necessary duties to preserve and improve the goods ensuring achievement of their aim: to

serve the Church’s mission.

162. Kehoe's experience securing copyrights positioned him to advise Daniel Hudson, CSC, editor of Notre Dame's Ave Maria magazine. However, he understood them solely as "real estate." Kehoe to Hudson, July 14, 1879, x-2-g, Daniel E. Hudson Papers (CHUD), UNDA. 163. Ludden to Corrigan, September 17, 1896, G15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 164. McQuaid to Corrigan, September 19, 1896, G15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY. 165. Brooklyn Bishop Charles McDonnell to Corrigan, October 18, 1896, G15, Archbishop Corrigan Papers, AANY.

167

After Spalding secured the catechism’s copyright and after Sadlier stopped printing a

pirated copy, Corrigan later did not enforce it among the numerous New York Catholic

publishers. Given the large Catholic school market and ease of copying the small booklet, the

catechism became widely available. Despite some bishops’ criticisms, no leader initiated revisions addressing pedagogical and theological concerns. Instead, publishers created clarifications, prayers, or explanatory material. One wonders if the Baltimore Catechism might have achieved greater success if the bishops had properly managed their intellectual property.

For the Manual of Prayers, the neglect appears more obvious. While the book required supervision, Gibbons relinquished its copyright. He oversaw the Manual, but Woodman secured

its copyright, jeopardizing the bishops’ ownership. The Paulist later sold it to CPS, and Corrigan

did not act on the opportunity to re-secure this church good. Losing ownership indicates a

detachment from the book and prevented attempts to make necessary improvements, not to

mention the embarrassment of multiple lawsuits. Benziger’s lack of support and the vernacular

missal’s emergence affected acceptance, but proper changes to the prayer book might have

addressed these market demands.

Proper administration required bishops to cooperate. Between the Third Plenary Council and the condemnation of Americanism in 1899, the period critical for the Manual, divisions

among US Catholic bishops intensified, preventing cooperation.166 The book required Corrigan and Gibbons to collaborate; the former at the center of US publishing in New York City and the

latter as the prayer book’s sponsor. Moreover, the Manual’s publication history shows the

German Question, clergy discipline, the uncertainty caused by the new apostolic delegate’s

166. Gerald P. Fogarty, "The Catholic Hierarchy in the United States Between the Third Plenary Council and the Condemnation of Americanism," U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 3 (1993): 19-35.

168

presence, and the understanding required to copyright a national prayer book affected its chances

for widespread adoption.

One cannot judge the Manual of Prayers solely on its limited distribution. It pioneered new territory for some laity and bishops: providing access to much of the church’s liturgy in

English, teaching the faith through liturgy, and emphasizing management of church media. As such, the bishops’ national prayer book prepared for the twentieth-century liturgical movement.

CHAPTER FOUR

Catechesis

A Catholic prayer book teaches the Christian faith employing a variety of means, including prayers, stories, images, and instructions. Prayer books containing liturgical rites, like

the Manual of Prayers, hold a pride of place in the Catholic tradition because their prayer forms

embody the faith.

The Manual’s liturgical nature and commission by a council of bishops suggests that, while unknown today, it uniquely contributes to the church’s liturgical history. The book differed from other nineteenth-century prayer books and the liturgical movement’s educational literature in the mid-twentieth century by including conciliar-endorsed instructions to introduce liturgical prayer forms. The Manual, containing directives together with liturgical rites, claims a lineage to an ancient Christian genre only recently restored by the Second Vatican Council reforms.

Liturgical prayer forms express the Christian faith (lex orandi, lex credendi); instructions select and emphasize certain aspects. In the late nineteenth century, the Council of Trent’s 1570

Roman Catechism served as the official source for catechesis especially encouraging pastors to instruct the faithful on the sacraments. The Manual also traces its descent from the Tridentine catechism. To identify its contribution to catechesis, this chapter compares the Manual’s instructions regarding the sacraments to the analogous Roman Catechism directives and to lessons from the prayer book’s nineteenth-century counterpart, the Baltimore Catechism.

The leaders of the nineteenth-century European liturgical movement desired to expand liturgy’s influence. It promoted Christians’ understanding of the Church’s rites, leading to the

169 170

proliferation of vernacular missals in the twentieth century and other educational materials. The

Manual’s English translations of liturgical rites identify it as a forerunner for the US movement.

More importantly, its instructions emphasize additional tenets of developing liturgical thought.

As such, the US liturgical renewal can claim ancestry in the Manual.

Liturgical-Catechetical Church Documents

The Manual of Prayers belongs to a long line of church documents combining catechetical instruction with liturgical prayer forms from the Didache to the present-day liturgical books. In Christianity’s first centuries, “church orders,” such as the Didache and the

Apostolic Tradition, catechized Christians on practical aspects of living the Christian faith and instructed them on the established implementation of liturgical rites such as Baptism and

Eucharist. Some included ritual prayer forms. Church orders emphasized liturgy’s importance for

Christian living and thereby ensured its proper performance and understanding.1

Through the centuries, the pastoral and catechetical aspects of liturgical books diminished. Starting in the seventh and eighth centuries, , unlike church orders,

primarily assisted the priest during Mass. They consisted mostly of prayer formulas, while other

books—ordines, ordinals, and ceremonials—provided rubrics or directions for the Mass’s correct

celebration. During this time, sacramentaries and associated rubrics described acceptable local

1. Edward Yarnold, "Church Orders," in The Study of Liturgy, ed. Cheslyn Jones et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 89-90; Nathan D. Mitchell and John F. Baldovin, "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and the Class of Liturgical Documents to Which it Belongs," in A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, ed. Edward Foley, Nathan D. Mitchell, and Joanne M. Pierce (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 1- 3.

171

practices and did not attempt to define a uniform liturgy. As priestly guides, the books did not

catechize lay Christians on the rites.2

The Council of Trent’s Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual

Among its many reforms, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) advanced liturgical

uniformity and commissioned liturgical books solely for the clergy’s use. The 1570 Roman

Missal’s three lengthy prefaces assisted priests by providing significant ritual instruction.

General Rubrics of the Missal provided an overview of the Mass and general norms, such as the ranking of feasts. The Rite to be Observed in the Celebration of the Mass contained rubrics similar to the ordines. Concerning Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Masses anticipated certain problems, such as spilling sacramental , and recommended practical remedies.3

Prior to the 1614 Roman Ritual, local rituals included instruction for ministers “because it is the book of usage for the priest in direct contact with his flock in the most important circumstances of their lives—birth, marriage, and death.”4 Serving as teaching aides, local rituals

represent the most pastoral of pre-Tridentine liturgical books, maintaining the ancient tradition of

issuing instructions with liturgical prayer forms, albeit for clergy use. Albert Castellano’s 1523

Liber Sacerdotalis and Cardinal Julius Santori’s 1602 Rituale Sacramentorum Romanum included significant catechetical instruction for the local Roman church. Walter von Arx labeled the former a Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie and Cyrille Vogel identified the latter as a

2. Mitchell and Baldovin, "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and the Class of Liturgical Documents to Which it Belongs," 8-11. 3. Ibid., 17-22; Jungmann, 96-97, 102; Dennis C. Smolarski, The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 1969-2002: A Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 5-8. 4. Gerald J. Sigler, "The Influence of Charles Borromeo on the Laws of the Roman Ritual," 24 (1964): 328, see also 137; Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, trans. William George Storey and Niels Krogh Rasmussen (Washington, DC: Pastoral Press, 1986), 269, n. 303.

172

“liturgical-didactic production.”5 The books provided the basis for the 1614 Roman Ritual.

However, the Tridentine compilers reduced the pastoral compendiums, focusing instead on liturgical forewarnings (praemonitiones) or laws, such as the proper water quality for Baptism or the need to respond promptly to requests for Penance, thereby severing the practice of liturgical books juxtaposing catechetical instructions with rites. “What was necessary next was a more juridic set of directives: moral, pastoral, and dogmatic to be sure, but primarily laws which would guarantee a minimum for valid, reverent, and fruitful administration of the sacraments and sacramentals.”6

Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Developments

The liturgical movement, begun in nineteenth-century Europe before the Manual’s publication, gained momentum in the twentieth. The movement aimed at full and active participation in the liturgy and promoted the assembly’s engagement in liturgical rites—not simply for the priest. To prepare lay Catholics for participation, the movement emphasized education, an “important forerunner to liturgical change.”7 Its pioneers defined liturgical catechesis as the religious formation occurring during liturgy, and, secondarily, the necessary education to foster participation. Aimed for clergy and laity, educational materials, such as pamphlets, books, textbooks, and radio programs, assisted the movement, and study clubs,

5. Walter von Arx, "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale," Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte 63 (1969): 53-54; Vogel, 264-265; For a review of Castellano's and Santori's works, see Manlio Sodi and Juan Javier Flores Arcas, "Introduzione," in Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614), ed. Manlio Sodi and Juan Javier Flores Arcas (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), xxxiv-xlii. 6. Sigler, 134-135. 7. Pecklers, The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955, 152.

173

conferences, and the growth of a liturgical academic profession furthered its cause.8 While missals, approved by individual bishops, provided vernacular translations and instruction, and greatly assisted the movement, the Roman liturgical books remained in Latin and lacked pastoral

guidelines.

In the mid-twentieth century, before the Second Vatican Council, Phillip Weller, priest of

the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, translated the Roman Ritual into English and augmented

his work with pastoral instructions, returning to the pre-Tridentine ritual genre. Produced in a

three-volume set, he retained the Tridentine rites and associated liturgical laws, but his

instructions for priests reflected theological developments more than Roman Catechism

directives. However, Weller’s ritual never gained the national episcopate’s endorsement, only the

imprimaturs of Archbishop Moses Kiley of Milwaukee and Bishop John Treacy of La Cross.9

Coinciding with Weller’s volumes, the Holy See approved use of the vernacular for

certain sacraments in the Roman Ritual, such as baptism and marriage for various countries

while requiring the “essential words of the form of the sacraments” remain in Latin.10 In 1951,

the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of

Christian Doctrine (CCD), having revised the Baltimore Catechism in 1941, began work on an

English translation of the soon-to-be-produced 1952 Roman Ritual editio typica. To the larger

body of US bishops, the committee encouraged adoption of its efforts, citing the vernacular’s

effectiveness for religious instruction, the ability to reach millions of Catholics during ,

8. Ibid., 23, 151-212. 9. The Roman Ritual: In Latin and English with Rubrics and Planechant Notation, trans. Philip T. Weller (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1946-1952). 10. Michael A. Mathis, "Collectio Rituum," in The Confraternity Comes of Age: A Historical Symposium (Paterson, NJ: Confraternity Publications, 1956), 308.

174

weddings, and funerals, the desire to reduce the rite’s Latin administration with numerous

interruptions, and the Church’s tradition of adaptation. More importantly, while acknowledging

Latin’s role in creating uniformity, it stressed the “higher bond of union than that created by the

external sound of [the] Latin word.”11 The bishops promulgated their work in the 1954 Collectio

Rituum. Updated in 1964, the US ritual aimed to increase lay participation and understanding of

certain sacraments, illustrating the importance of the vernacular. However, it did not include

pastoral directives for their administration.12

In 1964, after the Second Vatican Council’s promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium—

and before development of new ritual books—Weller revised his work to reflect changes to the

Roman Ritual, combining them into a single volume. He cited the council’s charge, similar to

Trent’s, that “in the rite themselves, room should be made, if necessary, for short pieces of

commentary,"13 to justify his pastoral instructions for priests, which he titled “Introductions.”14

The Praenotanda and Institutio Generalis

Responding to the Second Vatican Council’s endorsement of full and active participation and charge that “the text and rites must be organized so as to express more clearly the holy things which they represent, and so that thus the Christian people … will be able to understand these things easily,”15 the Holy See produced instructions introducing the new rites. When considered

11. A Statement Explaining Collectio Rituum Anglicae Linguae (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1952), 17, 9-18. This pamphlet includes a brief historical survey of mid-twentieth-century Roman Ritual translations for various countries; Mathis, 303-306. 12. Collectio Rituum: Ad Instar Appendicis Ritualis Romani, pro Dioecesibus Statuum Foederatorum Americae Septentrionalis (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954); Collectio Rituum: Pro Diœcesibus Civitatum Fœderatarum Americæ Septentrionalis (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1964). 13. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 35.3, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 828. 14. The Roman Ritual, trans. Philip T. Weller, Complete ed. (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1964), v. 15. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 21, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 825.

175

together, the revised rites and their preliminaries provide the most extensive liturgical- catechetical church documents to date, covering many church rites, addressing clergy and laity,

and providing ample catechesis.

The Holy See published general instructions (institutio generalis) for the Eucharist and

Liturgy of the Hours and introductions (praenotanda) for the remaining rites and blessings. In

November 1969, after promulgation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Holy

See’s Congregation for Divine Worship clarified the document’s catechetical nature and

intention to educate on the liturgical roles of all Christians: It “seeks to provide guidelines for

catechesis of the faithful and to offer the main criteria for Eucharistic celebration to be used by

those who take part in the celebration according to their different orders and ranks.”16

The preliminaries intend to facilitate the education of the faith as expressed in the liturgy,

the primary environment for Christian formation. While not viewed as doctrinal, they provide

“the theological and pastoral context in which the rites are to be understood and interpreted,”

serving as a premier source for liturgical catechesis.17 As the Congregation for Divine Worship

declared, they replaced previous “treatises on rubrics and rites” with a catechetical framework

based on the rites. They “outline the celebration and its parts in the light of the doctrinal

principles contained in the documents noted. For the rites both have doctrine as their source and

give to doctrine its outward expression.”18

16. The Congregation of Divine Worship clarifed the General Instruction seven months after its promulgation in a Declaration. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982), 462 (no. 1369). 17. The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, s.v. "sources, liturgical." 18. International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 462 (nos. 1369-1370).

176

The Manual of Prayers: A Liturgical-Catechetical Church Document

The Manual’s instructions on the sacraments share similarities with the catechetical genre specific to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council: Conciliar-enjoined instructions published

as introductions to liturgical rites. The Manual does not include the scope of the Second Vatican

Council liturgical preliminaries, and, while its title indicates intended use for the Catholic laity,

the Third Plenary Council envisioned it as assisting priests with their responsibility to explain the

sacred rites. Moreover, it included conciliar-commissioned instructions for many liturgical rites,

including all sacraments except Holy Orders, and provided the US church’s pastoral directives to

the laity and clergy. Few liturgical-catechetical documents surveyed above meet the same

criteria. The Manual, in addition to foreshadowing the liturgical movement’s promotion of

vernacular liturgy, anticipated the Introductions and General Instructions introduced by Second

Vatican Council reforms, albeit as part of a national prayer book intended for US Catholics

partly derived from English and US devotional prayer books.

The Roman Catechism and Liturgical Catechesis

While the Tridentine Roman Ritual ceased including pastoral directives for its liturgical

rites, it directed clergy to the Roman Catechism:

As the Council of Trent prescribes, he will use the opportunity afforded at the administration of the sacraments to explain with diligence the power, efficacy, and use, as well as the signification of the ceremonies, whenever this can conveniently be done, basing the instruction on the teaching of the holy fathers and on the Roman Catechism.19

The Council of Trent aimed to clarify Catholic doctrine and proposed pastoral initiatives

to improve religious formation. Tridentine reforms, a turning point in developing catechesis,

19. The Roman Ritual, 20 (part I, ch. 1, no. 10).

177

improved clergy education, emphasized biblical formation, reorganized religious instruction for

the laity—promoting preaching to adults and offering catechesis for children—and created a

comprehensive and uniform catechism. The 1566 promulgation of Catechismus ex Decreto

Concilii Tridentii ad Parochos, Pii V jussu editus, popularly designated as Roman Catechism,

prior to the Roman liturgical books, shows the importance given to catechesis.20 For parish

priests (ad parochos), the catechism served as a “pastoral directory” or reference requiring study

and adaptation to local conditions.21

The Council of Trent intended to promote extensive catechesis on the sacraments through

a catechism. It cited the need for a catechism solely in the context of the sacraments and

encouraged its vernacular translations, an approach differing from the Roman liturgical books,

thereby ensuring widespread access by parish priests:

That the faithful may approach the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several sacraments: the bishops shall have these instructions carefully translated into the vulgar tongue and explained by all parish priests to their flocks.22

20. The Holy See promulgated the Roman Breviary in 1568, the Roman Missal in 1570, and the Roman Ritual in 1614. 21. Giuseppe Cavallotto, "The Council of Trent and the Origins of Modern Catechesis," in 'Going, Teach': Commentary on the Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae of John Paul II, ed. Cesare Bonivento and Institute of Missionary Catechesis of the Pontifical Urban University (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1980), 138, 144-150. 22. Translation provided by Joseph Wilhelm in The Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "Roman Catechism."; Norman Tanner's English translation omits the catechesis reference: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 764 (sess. 24, Decree on reform, can. 7).

178

The catechism’s compilation began during the council. Unable to complete the work, the fathers assigned its completion to Pope Pius IV.23

The catechism’s compilers followed the council’s lead, but instead of creating a new

structure for the book, they moderately adapted the traditional catechetical one. Emphasizing

sacraments’ importance in catechesis, they added instructions for them to the ancient tripartite

system of faith (creed), hope (prayer), and charity (commandments), producing a four-part

structure (Creed, Sacraments, Commandments, and Prayer).24 When completed, the section

devoted to the sacraments became “the longest and most distinctive part of the Roman

Catechism.”25

Between the reforms of Trent and the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catechism

served as the premier source for catechetical instruction and as a benchmark for catechesis.

Publishers produced numerous translations, abridgements, and commentaries.26 Supporting the

Tridentine mandate, the Praxis Catechismi method developed, preaching based upon sermon

guides adapting the Roman Catechism to the Sunday scriptures—many published as appendices

to vernacular translations starting in 1645.27 The US bishops at the Third Plenary Council of

Baltimore in 1884 desired the Manual to assist priests in the teaching duties articulated at Trent.

23. John W. O'Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 263; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 797 (sess. 25, Decree on general reform, ch. 21). 24. O'Malley, 264. 25. Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 39; For a study on the Roman Catechism's compilation, see Pedro Rodríguez and Raúl Lanzetti, El Catecismo Romano: Fuentes e Historia del Texto y de la Redacción, Bases criticas para el Estudio Teológico del Catecismo del Concilio de Trento (1566) (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1982). 26. For a comprehensive list of translations up to 1978, see Gerhard J. Bellinger, Bibliographie des Catechismus Romanus, ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos: 1566-1978 (Baden-Baden: V. Koerner, 1983). 27. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, "Introduction," in Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of , trans. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1923), xxv-xxxiii; The Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "Roman Catechism."; Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 40.

179

As such, the Roman Catechism provides an important catechetical wellspring for the bishops’

nineteenth-century prayer book.

The Roman Catechism’s second part, instructing on the sacraments, uses a general

pattern, which provides a framework to describe its catechesis and compare subsequent

catechetical works such as the Manual and Baltimore Catechism. It consists of eight chapters, an

introductory one followed by a chapter for each of the seven sacraments. Each chapter provides

administrative advice: Teaching objectives for the pastor and directions for the priest on the

sacrament’s proper administration. A majority of each chapter describes doctrine related to the

sacraments, including the sacrament’s name, definition, nature, institution, ministers, efficacy,

necessity, requisite dispositions, and ceremonies, although not necessarily in the same order nor

with the same emphasis.

The Roman Catechism introduces each sacrament by exploring its name, providing an etymology and other historical designations and establishing a concise definition. Teaching a sacrament’s nature justifies its inclusion as a sacrament and lists its constituent parts, using the scholastic concepts of matter and form for valid administration. The catechism cites scripture to prove a sacrament’s institution by Jesus Christ and explains the sacrament’s subsequent order of ministers, ensuring its preservation. It especially encourages publicizing a sacrament’s effects, usually defined as types of grace, to create a desire for its reception. Catechesis concerning a sacrament’s necessity communicates its relative importance and level of indispensability. The catechism instructs the recipient on the dispositions required for a sacrament’s proper reception and the ceremonies surrounding its core matter and form.

180

Post-Tridentine catechesis reflected the Roman Catechism and subsequent theological

refinements, originating in scholastic theology begun in the twelfth and thirteenth century and

made normative by the council. Louis-Marie Chauvet describes this theology as objectivist:

focusing on the production of grace which God creates, priests mediate, and people receive. The

mechanistic model reduces sacraments to a minimum and, using scholastic categories, defines

essential matter and form necessary for valid administration.28

Known for its theoretical speculation, post-Tridentine sacramental theology could merely

elaborate on Trent’s core. Basing many refinements on the thirteenth-century theologian, Saint

Thomas Aquinas, they obscured Trent’s system.29 The Manual and Baltimore Catechism did not

deviate from Trent but provided additional distinctions reflecting post-Tridentine theological

clarifications. For example, the Roman Catechism defines sanctifying grace as God’s

supernatural power bestowed by the sacraments. The nineteenth-century US books further differentiate between the sacraments of the dead and of the living, a distinction drawn from

Aquinas’s writings; that is, some sacraments give “first grace” to those spiritually dead due to original or actual mortal sin (Baptism and Penance), and others assume a state of grace and give

“second grace” to Christians spiritually alive.30

Post-Tridentine catechetical literature, such as the Baltimore Catechism and Manual,

remained limited to Trent’s core teaching and subsequent scholastic refinements, but could

28. Louis-Marie Chauvet, The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), xiv-xvii. 29. Herbert Vorgrimler, Sacramental Theology, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 58-59, 62; Josef Finkenzeller, Die Lehre von den Sakramenten im Allgemeinen: Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Freiburg: Herder, 1981), 69. 30. Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "sacraments."; Summa Theologiae, vol. 59 (New York: Blackfriars, McGraw-Hill, 1964), 11-15 (III:79:3).

181 differentiate by calling attention to certain aspects. An analysis of the amount of catechesis related to the framework described above reveals fundamental priorities and differences.

Post-Tridentine Liturgical Catechesis: A Quantitative Analysis

To understand the catechetical focus of the Manual within the Tridentine milieu, a quantitative analysis compares its introductions to the sacraments with the Baltimore

Catechism’s question-and-answer lessons and the analogous Tridentine pastoral directives.

Since the Council of Trent encouraged vernacular translations of the Roman Catechism, publishers have provided English editions, the earliest dated 1687 and the latest 1985.31 Because of the catechism’s size, the quantitative analysis utilizes the 1829 Donovan translation, available digitally in the public domain. The study cites the most recent English edition of Robert Bradley and Eugene Kevane, which restores Latin subheadings and divides the text into articles, providing a convenient citation method. Currently, no English translation exists based upon

Pedro Rodríquez’s 1989 publication of the Roman Catechism’s critical edition.32

31. For a list of English editions, see Bellinger, nos. 717-756; The five most recent English editions: The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. J. Donovan (1829; repr., New York: Catholic Publication Society, n.d.). At the turn of the twentieth century, the Catholic Publication Society and, subsequently, the Christian Press Association, were the primary publishers of Donovan's edition, which included the customary Praxis Catechismi appendix; The Catechism of the Council of Trent: Translated into English; With Notes, trans. Theodore Alois Buckley (London: George Routledge and Co., 1852); John Hagan, ed. A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1911); Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of Pope Pius V, trans. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1923); The Roman Catechism: Translated and Annotated in accord with Vatican II and Post-conciliar Documents and the New Code of Canon Law, trans. Robert I. Bradley and Eugene Kevane (Boston: St Paul, 1985). The Bradley/Kevane edition is hereafter cited as RC. 32. Pedro Rodríguez, Catechismus Romanus, seu, Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989).

182

Table 6. Sacraments’ Instructions in Roman Catechism and Third Plenary Council Books Roman Catechism Manual of Prayers Balt. Catechism Part 2, Chapter TOCa Subheadingb Page Lesson Sacraments in General 1 Sacraments in 390 13 General Baptism 2 Holy Baptism Explanation of the 393 14 Ceremonies Confirmation 3 Confirmation Instructions 418 15-16 The Ceremonies 420 Explained Eucharist 4 Devotions for What the Mass Is, 84 22-24 Mass for What End It Is to Be Offered Of the Ceremony of 86 Mass On the Manner of 89 Hearing Mass Devotions for Instructions for 302 Communion Holy Communion 325

Penance 5 Devotions for On the Sacrament 271 17-21 Confession of Penance Considerations to 277 Excite Confession Examination of 278 Conscience Directions for 285 Confession After Confession 288 Extreme Unction 6 Extreme Unction 482 25 Matrimony 8 Matrimony Instructions 431 26 aThe section in the Manual’s Table of Contents. bThe subheading for the sacrament’s instruction, some of which have no separate heading.

For the Baltimore Catechism, the analysis cites lessons for explaining the sacraments

(13 through 26) from the original 1885 Catholic Publication Society (CPS) no. 2 edition.33

33. The 1885 CPS edition is hereafter cited as BC. For a recent reprint of the original no. 2 catechism with question numbers, see Baltimore Catechism Two (Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, 2010).

183

Table 6 includes the instructions for the scope of this comparison. The Manual’s instructions related to the sacraments consist of a subset of the book’s instructions, listed in table

5 of chapter two. For ease of reference, table 6 features those instructions related to the sacraments, including subheadings and page numbers, but in the order presented in the Roman

Catechism and in this chapter along with the corresponding Baltimore Catechism lessons.

The Manual and Baltimore Catechism could not address all the Tridentine pastoral directives, consisting of extensive chapters and far exceeding the former’s instructions and the latter’s lessons. A comparison of the books’ word counts, shown in figure 8, reveals the preponderance of the Tridentine pastoral directives and the importance of Eucharist and Penance.

Moreover, it reveals the Manual’s larger set of sacramental instructions compared to the

Baltimore Catechism, even though the comparison does not include the significant amount of prayers in the Manual intended to cultivate a proper disposition and the rites themselves— material not explicitly instructional but part of the overall catechetical system.

The quantitative analysis entailed classifying the instructional content from the books according to Roman Catechism categories. Appendix four includes the results of arranging the number of words from Roman Catechism articles, Baltimore Catechism question and answers, and sentences from the Manual’s instructions with this framework for each sacrament. Figure 9 shows the overall results. Because the books’ sizes differ significantly, it displays the percentage each book devotes to a category to compare their relative priorities. Furthermore, it groups the sacrament’s more unvarying or objective features—defined as such by Tridentine sacramental theology—into a single classification called “sacrament.” These include a sacrament’s name,

184

Figure 8. Roman Catechism, Manual of Prayers, and Baltimore Catechism sacrament-instructions’ word count. Sources: Roman Catechism’s word count obtained from the public domain English translation: Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. J. Donovan (London: Baronius, 1829) via Internet Archive. Manual of Prayers and Baltimore Catechism counts obtained from the Catholic Publication Society original publications. The figure omits Holy Orders because it is not included in the Manual of Prayers. definition, nature, institution, ministers, efficacy, and necessity. This grouping allows a simplified contrast with the two remaining varied or subjective features of the sacraments, the recipient’s disposition and the church’s ceremonies.

The quantitative comparison reveals no surprises. The Baltimore Catechism and Manual, intended for lay use, concentrate on the recipient’s disposition. Furthermore, the Manual, a book replete with ritual text, increases its focus on the ceremonies.

185

Figure 9. Focus of Catechesis for the Sacraments

Disposition and Ceremonies

The quantitative comparison provides guidance for a qualitative analysis, suggesting a focus on disposition and ceremonies. As such, it requires an understanding of the terms

“disposition” and “ceremonies” to contextualize and interpret the results.

Disposition

In the general sense, disposition is a state or condition requiring the proper arrangement

or prioritization of parts. It implies a state necessary as a precondition for the “accomplishment

of a purpose.”34 As such, the word connotes a passive and active sense—a passive state, open for

future change, but one created through active preparation.

Scholastic philosophy differentiates between dispositions, habits, and virtues. Proper

dispositions lead to good habits which ultimately produce virtues. The Dominican Reginald

34. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. s.v. "disposition."

186

Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, a twentieth-century Neo-Scholastic theologian, summarizes

Aquinas’s distinction:

Only gradually, like fire in damp material, or water dripping on rock, can reason create that second nature which we call habit. Reason’s first act produces a disposition, the second act strengthens that disposition, and the series must continue to a final act, strong enough to turn the disposition into a permanent quality, difficult to change.35

According to scholastic thought, dispositions manifest more transience than habits. But good

dispositions evolve from reason—not feelings or moods—and help create habits and virtues.

In scholastic theology, one receives God’s grace in relation to one’s spiritual disposition.

For Aquinas, because of the divine nature, humans cannot create the necessary dispositions—

without God providing initial grace.36 When describing Baptism, Aquinas explains how

individual Christians receive varying degrees of grace based on dispositions.

Adults, on the other hand, who approach baptism through their own faith are not equal. For the approach is made by some with greater devotion than is the case with others. Therefore some receive more and others less of the grace of new life, just as the one who draws more closely receives more warmth from a fire, even though the fire, of itself, radiates its heat to all in equal fashion.37

The Council of Trent stressed God and the sacramental act affecting grace (ex opere

operato: from the work worked); thereby the council did not “demand more personal preparation, so as not to endanger the practice of infant baptism.”38 It described the minimum disposition to receive the sacraments in negative terms—a condition simply requiring one not to obstruct God’s actions.39 But in its decrees on , the council asserted the active role of

35. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Beatitude: A Commentary on St. Thomas' Theological Summa, Ia IIae, qq. 1- 54, trans. Patrick Cummins (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1956), 352. 36. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109- 14, trans. Dominican (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1952), 77-79. 37. Summa Theologiae, vol. 57 (New York: Blackfriars, McGraw-Hill, 1964), 147 (III:69:8). 38. Vorgrimler, 61. 39. Ibid., 58-61.

187

human will, once awakened by God, to “dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of

justification.”40 The expression ex opere operantis (from the work of the doer) captures the

contribution of the recipient, priest, or church in the work of the sacraments.

An early twentieth-century English definition distinguishes between definite and good

dispositions required for sacramental reception. The former define the minimum conditions

required for valid administration of the sacraments, such as the recipient’s age, marital status,

and proper intention. The latter increases one’s spiritual capacity to benefit from the sacrament

by cultivating a spiritual state receptive to God’s grace and would have us “desire to do that

which God would have us do.”41 Receiving more of a sacrament’s grace underlies the phrases

“worthy” or “fruitful” reception, cultivated by dispositions, defined as acts of faith and devotion

manifesting one’s spiritual self-surrender.

Karl Rahner differentiates between negative and positive dispositions, describing the role

of God and humans in their formation. Defining disposition as a condition necessary for “a being

which is changing” towards a new determination, he acknowledges the need to remove negative dispositions, hindrances which prevent the movement of God’s grace. He stresses humans’ inability to produce and sustain a positive capacity for a sacrament’s fruitful reception, thereby requiring God’s grace, without diminishing the vital nature of man’s subjective role. “An adult must prepare himself for the reception of a sacrament and for the grace of the sacrament, for despite their character of opus operatum the sacraments are not causes which operate magically.”

More importantly, he highlights the role of catechesis in forming a disposition:

40. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 679 (sess. 6, Decree on Justification, can. 4). 41. The Catholic Encyclopædic Dictionary, 1931 ed. s.v. "disposition."

188

It is an urgent task of sacramental theology and of preaching on the sacraments to bring out even more clearly the unity of the objective action of God in man by grace in the sacrament and the subjective salutary action of man occurring in grace (which is precisely the "disposition"). We must not be content casuistically to determine the minimum disposition for the various sacraments and so encourage the prejudice that the sacrament does the rest, or does so if received with the maximum frequency. … It is meaningless to increase the frequency with which a sacrament is received if there is no growth in the personal moral participation by the individual in the accomplishment of the sacrament, i.e., in his disposition.42

Rahner stresses continual cultivation of disposition for sacraments frequently received, such as Eucharist and Penance. Additionally, for Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and

Matrimony, he describes the need for ongoing formation, including awareness of responsibilities assumed by a new Christian identity:

The disposition can be supplied or personally deepened after the reception of the sacrament and so the effect of the sacrament can be obtained or deepened. … Pastoral endeavour ought to promote the rekindling of sacramental grace on a higher level by deepening the personal attitude to a sacrament already received but lasting in its effects.43

Christians cannot grow in their relationship with God solely by their efforts and the sacraments provide the grace needed for spiritual growth. On that basis, one must participate in one’s relationship with God—and be open to the church’s assistance—to be spiritually disposed.

Ceremonies

The term ceremonies, used throughout the Roman Catechism, remained in wide use in

Catholic literature up to the Second Vatican Council.44 The term applied to any ritual act, gesture,

42. Karl Rahner, Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, vol. 2 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968). s.v. "disposition." 43. Ibid. 44. Charleston Bishop John England's popular, and lengthy, prologue serves as a prime US example: John England, "Explanation of the Mass," in The Roman Missal Translated into the English Language for the Use of the Laity: To Which is Prefixed, an Historical Explanation of the , Ceremonies, etc., Appertaining to the Holy of the Mass, ed. John England (New York: W.H. Creagh, 1822); The Rev. Adrian Fortescue, an English priest, provided rubrical explanations of the ceremonies, first published in 1918 with a twelfth

189

or prayer, such as lighting the baptismal candle, performed within a church rite. The scholastic

emphasis on valid administration reduced the sacrament to a core ritual act consisting of matter

and form and created a distinction between essential and non-essential ceremonies.45 A valid

Baptism must include the pouring of water and pronouncing the , while not requiring other gestures, acts, or prayers. Similarly, the bishop’s anointing of a confirmand’s forehead and pronouncing the words of constitute the essence of Confirmation, while his stroking of a confirmand’s cheek or other prayers remain secondary. In many cases, such as the Roman Catechism, ceremonies refer simply to the non-essential ones surrounding a sacrament’s matter and form. Furthermore, the term and its definition, “sacred actions … found chiefly in the rubrical literature of modern times,” connote their formal, performative nature carried out primarily for embellishment.46

But the ceremonies rather than secondary rites meant solely for adornment possess a

tightly-coupled relationship with their essential counterparts. John Miller includes ceremonies

when describing the history of the sacraments. The Greek mysterion was translated into Latin as

sacramentum. The latter evolved to mean a ritual-mystery act and encompassed many symbolic

rituals used in the early Church. In the twelfth century, Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Abelard

differentiated between important and less important sacraments, and the Third Lateran Council

edition published in 1962, and remained popular up to the Second Vatican Council. Adrian Fortescue, The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (London: Burns & Oates, 1918). 45. The Catholic Encyclopædic Dictionary, 1931 ed. s.v. "ceremony."; A Catholic Dictionary, 1884 ed. s.v. "ceremony (sacred)." 46. New Dictionary of the Liturgy, s.v. "ceremonies."

190

in 1179 described rituals such as the Nuptial Blessing as sacraments. The twelfth-century

scholastic theologian, Peter Lombard, limited the term to the current seven.47

Miller also identifies Peter Lombard as the first to employ the term sacramental, to

differentiate the non-essential ceremonies from the sacrament’s essential rite. In addition,

sacramentals refer to separate rites, such as the Divine Office, funerals, and blessings. Aquinas further clarified the distinction, adding that sacramentals do not confer grace but rather prepare one for the sacraments. The divide between sacraments and sacramentals resulted from the scholastic classification based on causality.48

The understanding of ceremonies in the post-Tridentine church varied. In many instances, including the Manual of Prayers, their meaning encompassed numerous objects. The Council of

Trent defined ceremonies as “symbolic blessings, lights, , vestments, and many other rituals of that kind from apostolic order and tradition,” whereas John England’s 1822

“Explanation of the Mass” differentiates object and ceremony. In either case, their inclusion in

post-Tridentine catechesis demonstrates the importance of explaining sacred objects, including church architecture.49

Sacramentals like sacraments consist of signs. Whereas the Church affirmed that Christ

instituted the sacraments, it created sacramentals. They do not operate but

rather ex opere operantis Ecclesiae (from the work of the church’s work). As such, they are subject to change based upon the church’s teaching needs. The Council of Trent asserted the church’s right to make changes “judged expedient for the well-being of recipients, or for the

47. John H. Miller, Fundamentals of the Liturgy (Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1960), 426-428. 48. Ibid., 427-428. 49. Ibid., 429-430; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 734 (sess. 22, ch. 5); England, xi.

191

reverence due to the sacraments themselves, provided their essentials remained intact, in view of

changing affairs, times and places.”50 Despite this adaptability, ceremonies fluctuated slightly in

the post-Tridentine period in the Roman rite. Their fluctuations occurred in local rituals especially Matrimony, and the mid-twentieth century vernacular for non-essential prayer forms.

Through the same period, the Latin and Eastern rites varied significantly.

The non-essential ceremonies assist the church in its teaching function by helping form the recipient’s disposition:

The Church has instituted such ceremonies in order to remove the obstacles to grace, to instill within the heart and soul of the recipient proper attitudes of respect, reverence, faith, humility, and charity—all of which are necessary if the grace of the sacraments is really going to make the soul grow in the spiritual life. Furthermore, these very ceremonies enlighten the mind as to the true meaning of the sacrament about to be received; they are a living catechetics aimed at bringing about a reasonable and reasoning participation in the sacramental action.51

The Council of Trent explained their two-fold purpose: to create a solemn and reverential sacred space and to assist Christians in their understanding and experience of the sacrament.52 Hence,

the ceremonies possess a single aim: to create sacred contexts conducive for fostering spiritual

dispositions.

The Roman Ritual directed pastors to the Roman Catechism “to explain with diligence

the power, efficacy, and use, as well as the signification of the ceremonies.”53 The Roman

Catechism asserts ceremonies’ importance, but it primarily focuses on a sacrament’s objective

nature by teaching about its essential matter and form. It discusses ceremonies as an appendage,

50. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 726 (sess. 21, ch. 2); A Catholic Dictionary, 1884 ed. s.v. "ceremony (sacred)." 51. Miller, 425. 52. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 734 (sess. 22, ch. 5). 53. The Roman Ritual, 20 (part I, ch. 1, no. 10).

192

merely instructing on a sample or referring the pastor to other books. Nonetheless, it added a

volume solely to treat the sacraments, addressed the cultivation of more than the minimum

disposition, and sparsely explained ceremonies to foster fruitful reception. Perhaps these features

prompted Giuseppe Cavallotto to note the catechism’s novelty: liturgical catechesis. “Departing

notably from other contemporary texts, the Catechism emphasizes, although in a form yet

elementary, the bond between catechesis and liturgy.”54

A Qualitative Analysis

For catechesis, the foregoing addresses the importance of cultivating the recipients’

dispositions in addition to teaching a sacrament’s objective nature. The following compares the

Roman and Baltimore catechisms and the Manual of Prayers, providing a descriptive analysis of

their teaching related to disposition and ceremonies to understand the Manual’s contribution to

catechesis.55

The Sacraments in General

The Roman Catechism extends Trent’s essential doctrines by its teaching on positive dispositions. Its volume on the sacraments begins by stressing its overall aim: “By careful and frequent instruction in the sacraments the faithful will be able to approach these sacred realities more worthily and profitably.” Commanding clergy not to break the divine command, “do not

54. Cavallotto, 149. 55. Within the sections defined in table 6, the Roman Catechism’s critical text does not include the Latin word dispositiones, but subsequent versions added it as a subheading. In addition, many English editions translate numerous phrases as “disposition,” such as bene constituto animos and animo affectus. Other phrases convey the notion of preparing for the sacraments. The Baltimore Catechism uses “disposition” once—describing when the sacraments give grace—while discussing reception throughout. Of the three books, the Manual uses the term the most. The Roman Catechism and Manual use the terms caeremoniae and “ceremony” respectively, which the Baltimore Catechism omits.

193

give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine,” while seemingly demeaning

humans, affirms the importance of their intellectual and spiritual capacity, and thereby the

subjective in catechesis.56

The catechism acknowledges the teaching of a sacrament’s objective nature to form a

recipient’s disposition. When describing a sacrament as a sign, it states such knowledge for

recipients “will deepen their faith in holiness which the sacraments signify and effect, and thus

dispose them to be more receptive and grateful in their regard.”57 Yet, its introductory chapter

does not define disposition nor articulate those required or advantageous for receiving a

sacrament’s graces.

The Baltimore Catechism and Manual relate the minimum requirements for a

sacrament’s reception. For those other than Baptism and Penance, one must be without mortal

sin. For worthy reception, the Baltimore Catechism states the importance of disposition.58 The

Manual expands, highlighting God’s initiative. It describes God’s grace as water flowing from a fountain and through the sacraments as channels. A person brings one’s own receptacle to the streams—the size determined by one’s disposition. “The larger the vessel, the greater the quantity of water it will contain. So the larger the capacity of the soul (which capacity depends upon the soul's dispositions), the greater the portion of grace which it receives through the heavenly channels of the sacraments.”59 While one can increase reception, the Manual stresses that disposition does not affect a sacrament’s power:

56. RC, 145 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 1). 57. Ibid., 148 (vol. 2, ch. 1, art. 7). 58. BC, 25 (less. 13, q. 144, 147). 59. Manual, 390 (sent. 4). Appendix Four lists the Manual's sentences for the sacrament's instructions.

194

But the conditions required in the receiver are by no means productive of the efficacy of the sacraments. Take the example of light and heat: fire is not lacking in burning power because it cannot act on incombustible materials; nor are the windows of a room the cause of light, though necessary to give it admission.60

For ceremonies, the Roman Catechism describes their importance for disposition. They

“display more fully the effects of the sacraments; they impress our senses—and our minds—with

the holiness of these realities. They stimulate the exercise of both faith and charity.”

Nonetheless, while highlighting their effectiveness and reiterating their two-fold purpose

articulated by the Council of Trent (to create a reverential environment and enhance perception

of the sacraments’ effects), it emphasizes their non-essential nature compared to a sacrament’s

basic matter and form.61

In its general chapter, the Baltimore Catechism omits ceremonies, and the Manual, a

prayer book replete with liturgical rites, does not address their role. In defining sacrament, the

Manual employs a variant of Augustine’s classic definition, describing a sacrament as a

ceremony: “By Sacrament is meant an outward sign of inward grace, or a sacred and mysterious

sign and ceremony ordained by Christ to convey grace to our souls,” a definition popularized by

nineteenth-century English Catholic catechisms.62

Baptism

For Baptism’s recipient, the Roman Catechism explains necessary and fruitful dispositions, godparents’ responsibilities, and the need for ongoing formation. The minimum disposition requires the recipient to approach the sacrament without external influence. To obtain

60. Ibid., 390 (sent. 5). 61. RC, 154-155 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 18). 62. Manual, 390 (sent. 1); Catholic Encyclopedia, (1912), s.v. "sacraments."

195 grace, one must confess sins and grow in understanding of the faith. While not essential for

Baptism’s administration, the catechism recommends that pastors refuse one approaching the sacrament without them.63 Godparents play an important role in cultivating a Christian’s baptismal dispositions and thereby must be adequately qualified. Their duties take place in a community, assisting the priest’s public instruction by maintaining a relationship with the neophyte and the child’s parents in the case of infant Baptism. The catechism describes godparents as the primary catechists, teaching the rudiments of the faith—the Creed, Our Father, and the Decalogue.64 Finally, the catechism reminds pastors to awaken the dispositions of

Christians present at the sacrament, fostering “an awareness of God’s promises and of their own responsibility as persons already baptized.”65

The Baltimore Catechism omits instruction on the recipient’s disposition and significantly reduces the godparents’ role in ongoing formation. While speaking for the child during the rite, the godparents provide instruction on the faith “if the parents neglect to do so or die.”66 The Manual omits disposition, focusing its instruction exclusively on ceremonies. But it adds prayers for the renewal of baptismal vows, aiming to awaken the proper dispositions defined by the Roman Catechism: reminding Christians to repent of sins, amend their lives, and continue to learn the Christian faith.67

For Baptism’s ceremonies, the Roman Catechism equates them to speaking in tongues and urges their interpretation. While they help to amplify a sacrament’s effects, “without some

63. RC, 181-182, 191 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 38, 39, 58). 64. Ibid., 176-178 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 26-29). 65. Ibid., 165 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 2). 66. BC, 28 (less. 14, q. 164, 165). 67. Manual, 409-411.

196

instruction in these ceremonies, that help may be minimal.”68 Emphasizing ceremonies’ apostolic

heritage, secondary nature, and two-fold purpose, it encourages priests to unveil their meanings.

The Roman Catechism explains more ceremonies for Baptism than other sacraments.69

The Baltimore Catechism describes the believer’s promise to renounce the devil and the

requirement to bestow a saint’s name. In contrast, the Manual, like the Roman Catechism,

explains many ceremonies. It begins with a review of their apostolic tradition, citing saints Basil,

Augustine, and Ambrose. Differing from Trent’s two-fold purpose, it stresses a double subjective significance: The visible rites point to the Holy Spirit’s inner workings on “the souls of those that

receive the Sacrament” and present obligations Christians must honor.70

For those ceremonies described in the Roman Catechism and Manual, the explanations

convey similar meanings. For example, the former describes the anointing on the

forehead after Baptism as symbolizing a union with Christ, the head of the body. The baptized

become Christian, “a name derived from Christ, just as ‘Christ’ is in turn a name derived from

chrism.” The latter describes a similar but three-fold significance: one’s consecration to God,

sharing in Christ’s anointing, and new responsibilities as priest, prophet, and king.71

Additionally, the Roman Catechism describes the priest’s breathing three times in the candidate’s face, a part of the exorcism ceremony, as signifying the expulsion of the devil and restoration of life. The Manual adds that the priest’s actions represent the Holy Spirit, the breath of God, which rids and “expresses the contempt which Christians have of him, and the

68. RC, 191 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 59). 69. Ibid., 191-197 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 59-76). 70. BC, 27-28 (less. 14, q. 162-163); Manual, 393 (sent. 1-9). 71. RC, 196 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 73); Manual, 396 (sent. 39-42).

197

ease with which he may be put to flight, like a straw with a puff of wind.”72 These examples

demonstrate the Manual’s development of ceremonies’ meanings, briefly explained in the

Roman Catechism. Furthermore, it includes a greater number, such as the godparents’ holding their godchild during Baptism signifying “that they answer for him, or that they engage to put him in mind of his vow and promise.”73

Confirmation

To cultivate Confirmation’s dispositions, the Roman Catechism emphasizes the

sacrament’s effects and the sponsor’s role to cultivate dispositions. Any baptized person may

receive Confirmation. The catechism recommends deferring the sacrament for children until they

obtain the use of reason. Echoing Trent, it reiterates Confirmation confers grace if the recipient

provides no obstacle, and it recommends a right disposition to receive Confirmation’s graces.

Dispositions include faith, devotion, and a deep sorrow for serious sins and thereby require penance, fasting, and works of piety. Repeating its baptismal teaching, it stresses the sponsor’s

importance, a topic omitted in the Third Plenary Council’s books. It likens a confirmand’s

situation to a gladiator’s need for a coach to “help him by pointing out how to handle his

opponent in the ring,” thereby requiring an experienced Christian to further the graces received in Confirmation.74

The Baltimore Catechism equates worthy reception of Confirmation to being in a state of

grace; that is, lack of mortal sin. For preparation, it adds specific catechetical aims. One “should know the chief mysteries of faith and the duties of a Christian, and be instructed in the

72. RC, 193-195 (pt. 2, ch. 2, art. 65); Manual, 394 (sent. 13-14). 73. Manual, 396 (sent. 36, 38). 74. RC, 205-207 (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 15, 18-20).

198

[sacrament’s] nature and effects.” Its chapter, “On the Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Ghost,”

provides catechesis on Confirmation’s effects, encouraging Christians to prepare.75

The Manual devotes an increased percentage of its catechesis to disposition. It defines the lack of mortal sin as “duly disposed” or the least one must do to receive “worthily,” and advocates preparation by fervent devotion, thorough contrition, and service. For the Manual, faith does not equate solely to tenets but includes a trusting . It stresses the Holy Spirit’s role, encouraging openness to the spirit and considering each person its temple. Citing the apostles’ intense prayer between Ascension and Pentecost, the Manual encourages similar fervor. It recommends removing all failings, not just mortal sin, and achieve “a purity of conscience.” Furthermore, it describes Confirmation’s obligations. By employing military language, such as loyal allegiance, fighting battles, and suffering unto death, the three books equate the confirmand to a newly-minted soldier. The Manual adds the necessary discipline of prayer and service. The total of all obligations remains “to live up to the glorious character of a

Soldier of Christ, and to maintain that interior purity and sanctity which becomes the Temple of the Holy Ghost, by a life of prayer and a life of love.”76 The Manual’s preparatory, thanksgiving,

and Confirmation anniversary prayers incorporate the Holy Spirit’s gifts, further cultivating the

confirmand’s disposition.77

For ceremonies, all three books explain Confirmation’s essential matter and form, the

bishop’s anointing the forehead with chrism, symbolizing the Holy Spirit’s outpouring and

confirming with strength and courage, and the surrounding ritual of the bishop’s stroking the

75. BC, 29 (less. 15, q. 173-174), 30-31 (less. 16, q. 176-186). 76. Manual, 419-420 (sent. 11, 12). 77. Ibid., 421, 426-430.

199

cheek, reminding confirmands to bear forthcoming adversities. The Tridentine catechism and

Manual describe the bishop’s , representing the fullness of grace the sacrament

confers surpassing all understanding.78 The Roman Catechism recommends bishops administer

Confirmation on Pentecost—the commemorating the Apostles receiving the Holy

Spirit. Moreover, it encourages priests to refer to this spirit-filled event in their Confirmation

catechesis. Unlike the Baltimore Catechism, the Manual cites the event as the prime example to

form the disposition of devotion.79

Eucharist

The Tridentine Catechism distinguishes between Eucharist as a sacrifice (the Mass) and a

sacrament (the species of bread and wine). As such, its catechesis differentiates between

dispositions for Mass attendance and Communion.

The Roman and Baltimore catechisms do not advise on how to prepare for Mass. The

Manual advises clearing “wandering thoughts” and concerns, obtaining a humble disposition, and praying for God’s assistance “that we may participate in this Holy Sacrifice in a worthy and becoming manner.” For during Mass, it recommends either following the priest using a vernacular translation, praying separate devotions while uniting intentions with the celebrant, or meditating on the Passion or some other appropriate subject. The Baltimore Catechism recommends one “assist” with an inward piety and a respectful, external demeanor, and “hear”

Mass by offering it with the priest, meditating on Christ’s passion, and receiving Communion.80

78. RC, 209 (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 26); BC, 29 (less. 15, q. 172); Manual, 420-421 (sent. 18). 79. RC, 209 (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 25); Manual, 419, 421 (sent. 7-9, 19). 80. Manual, 89 (sent. 50-56); BC, 46 (less. 24, q. 269).

200

The Roman Catechism frames its teaching on disposition for Communion by describing

three types of reception: sacrament only (reception without preparation), spiritual (no reception

but a lively faith), and sacramental/spiritual. It admonishes the first, approves the second, and highly recommends the third. Not to receive when prepared deprives one of gifts. It likens the soul to a stomach which must be healthy to receive food. The communicant prepares to receive by understanding the difference between regular and sacred food, being at peace with others, examining one’s conscience, and if necessary receiving absolution through confession, recognizing one’s unworthiness, and maintaining a love for Christ. Recipients prepare their bodies by abstaining from food after the preceding midnight and for married couples sexual intercourse for “some days” beforehand. Acknowledging the incompleteness of its list, it points to other preparations: “Under one or another of these headings may be put other preparatory practices which the devotion of each one may suggest.”81

The Baltimore Catechism differentiates between the dispositions necessary for a “good

Communion” and receiving “plentifully.” The former requires a state of sanctifying grace—

lacking mortal sin—and fasting after midnight. For the latter, one should “be free from all

affection to ” and produce acts of faith, hope, and love. Additionally, it encourages

prayer after receiving Communion to foster thanksgiving.82

The Manual assigns significant catechesis to foster the communicant’s disposition in addition to its pre- and post-communion prayers. The minimum preparation consists of examination of one’s soul, repentance, and confession. To receive fruitfully one “must endeavor to attain the best possible devotion.” As such it provides two spiritual exercises. The first,

81. RC, 240-243 (pt. 2, ch. 4, art. 55-58). 82. BC, 44-45 (less. 23, q. 254, 256, 261).

201

consisting of a four-step reflection, recommends recipients consider their unworthiness, desire

for union with Christ, meditate on the Passion, and produce acts of faith, hope, love, and

humility. The second raises questions—many referring to family, friends, and work—to evoke

thanksgiving and intentions. For those desiring to recite prayers, the Manual provides preparatory and thanksgiving formulas derived from the Roman Missal. Intended to aid reflection and not “substitutes for our own efforts,” Woodman extended some for a larger audience, “as a variety is useful for different minds, and also for the same mind at different times.”83

For the Mass ceremonies, the Roman Catechism mentions them last, simply stressing

their importance and reiterating their two-fold purpose. It defers to “a variety of both devotional

and learned treatises” for their explanations, conveying an understanding of their secondary

importance in its catechesis.84 The Baltimore Catechism excludes Mass ceremonies, but the

Manual devotes a quarter of its instruction to them, echoing their two-fold purpose: to elevate

one’s thoughts to God and educate.

The constitution of our nature is such as to require external signs and ceremonies which may operate through the medium of the bodily senses upon our souls, and elevate them to God. To this end are directed all the ceremonies of the Church, and it is the Christian's duty to learn how to use them accordingly.85

The Manual guides the reader through a church building, providing descriptions of items

within view. It conveys a broad understanding of ceremonies by including architecture, sacred

objects, and gestures made by all Catholics. It provides meaning for the baptismal font, sign of

the cross, baptismal water, altar, tabernacle, , , numerous priestly vestments,

83. Manual, 303-305 (sent. 82-122). 84. RC, 253-254 (pt. 2, ch. 4, art. 81). 85. Manual, 86 (sent. 24-25).

202

colors, candles, bell, and incense. Its catechesis does not include ritual actions performed by the

priest during Mass. Rather, written from an attendee’s perspective, it teaches about their simple gestures and the sacred objects they readily see, hear, and smell.86

Penance

Since the recipient contributes a constituent component to Penance, the catechesis related

to disposition increases in all three books. The Roman Catechism identifies the penitent’s

contrition, confession, and satisfaction as “quasi-matter.” It thereby structures its exposition in

three sections. The Baltimore Catechism adopts the same structure, providing a lesson on

contrition and one on confession and satisfaction. The Manual as a prayer book centered on rites

structures its catechesis around confession—the liturgical aspect of Penance.

The Roman Catechism states “contrition disposes for the remission of sins.” An

awareness of offending God and thereby the highest form of sorrow, contrition includes a hatred

for wrongdoing and a firm desire to sin no more. In confession, one communicates past sins to a

priest and obtains absolution. The catechism defines satisfaction as the penance imposed by a

priest and as such “the compensation made by us to God, by doing something to make up for our

sins,” including a resolution to avoid future transgressions. It draws a distinction between

remission of eternal punishment for sin versus “after-effects of that mortal sin,” traditionally

called temporal punishment—which requires satisfaction.87

The Baltimore Catechism distinguishes between four attributes of sorrow (interior,

supernatural, universal, and sovereign) and two types of contrition (perfect and imperfect), items

86. Ibid., 87-88 (sent. 26-49). 87. RC, 267-268, 276, 287 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 23-25, 38, 62).

203

implicitly covered in the Roman Catechism. Furthermore, it expands the teaching on satisfaction

by explaining indulgences—which assist the remission of temporal punishment.88

The Manual rather than define the three components facilitates their achievement.

The Roman and Baltimore catechisms provide guidelines and recommend methods to

assist the attainment of contrition, confession, and satisfaction. To cultivate contrition, the former highlights God’s infinite goodness, mercy, and acceptance of sinners and instructs its user to

identify and detest mortal sins, resolve to confess, amend one’s life, and forgive others. For a

method, it recommends pastors continually stress the value of contrition and teach Catholics to

examine their consciences.89

The Baltimore Catechism proposes prayer to identify and detest sins and examine one’s

conscience by reflecting on the Ten Commandments, precepts of the church, seven capital sins,

and their own responsibilities.90

What the catechisms recommend, the Manual provides. It includes a guided meditation to

“excite contrition,” reflecting on God’s providence and culminating with an elaborate examination of conscience based on the Ten Commandments and the church’s precepts, calling

to mind daily tasks and responsibilities.91

For confession, the Roman and Baltimore catechisms recommend a disposition of

sincerity or integrity and thereby confess all sins, disclose necessary circumstances and details,

communicate clearly and simply, and obtain a modest or humble attitude.92

88. BC, 33-35 (less. 18, q. 196-200, 202-204), 39-40 (less. 21, q. 231-236). 89. RC, 271-273 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 29-33). 90. BC, 33 (less. 17, q. 192-194). 91. Manual, 277-282 (sent. 16-70). 92. RC, 279-282 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 46, 50-51); BC, 35-36 (less. 19, q. 209-213).

204

The Manual shepherds the reader through a simulated confessional experience,

integrating advice based on the recommended dispositions.93

Confession includes short rituals, thereby reducing the amount of catechesis devoted to

ceremonies. The Roman Catechism reiterates the non-essential nature of ceremonies surrounding

the rite’s matter and form, though penitents should observe them because they foster humility and gratefulness. It recommends kneeling to a seated priest as a humbled criminal facing a seated judge and confessing as if deserving punishment. Ceremonies include gestures of humility, such as an uncovered head, kneeling, eyes cast down, and hands in prayer. Instituted by the church, the ceremonies “enhance its dignity” and “dispose [the penitent] better to receive its grace,” repeating Trent’s two-fold purpose.94

The Baltimore Catechism describes a step-by-step process for confession including the

recitation of simple phrases and the . It recommends kneeling, making the , and answering questions posed by the priest.95 The Manual prescribes kneeling, the

sign of the cross, and a bowed head. Rather than memorizing short forms it recommends the

lengthier Benedicte, , and Act of Contrition provided in the prayer book.96

For satisfaction, the Roman Catechism requires remaining in a state of grace while

performing works of satisfaction: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The works as punishments

must bear a difficulty and if applicable include restitution. The Baltimore Catechism lists means

to satisfy God: “Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, all spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and the

patient suffering of the ills of life.” The Manual advises penitents to “be fully resolved to do

93. Manual, 285 (sent. 75-82). 94. RC, 263-264, 277-278 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 15, 17, 42). 95. BC, 38-39 (less. 20, q. 224-230). 96. Manual, 285-286 (sent. 71-74, 83-86).

205 whatever [the priest] bids you to do, either in way of penance, or restitution, or reparation, or for the avoiding of sin in the future.” It encourages the immediate performance of penance. More importantly, it provides a four-step process for ongoing reflection to overcome “one or two of your more prominent defects of character.”97

Extreme Unction

The Roman Catechism advises reception of Extreme Unction for those near death. It directs pastors to administer the sacrament ideally to the conscious, highlighting dispositions’ importance. “It is obvious the sacrament is more efficacious if administered while the recipient is conscious and can elicit acts of faith and love.” It recommends Penance and Eucharist as preparation, removing the impediment of mortal sin, and advises pastors to instruct recipients on proper desires and expectations. Confident in God’s power through the sacrament, they should expect the soul’s healing while seeking God’s will for bodily health.98

The Baltimore Catechism recommends one receive the sacrament while conscious, in a state of grace, possessing a “lively faith,” and resigned to God’s will. The Manual exhorts recipients to prepare by acts of contrition, achieve a confidence in God’s mercy, and be open to

God’s will. It provides a preparatory prayer echoing this instruction and a concluding prayer of thanksgiving.99

The Roman Catechism and Manual teach Extreme Unction’s core rite, omitted by the

Baltimore Catechism. They explain the anointing of five body parts associated with the senses

97. RC, 293-295 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 73-78); BC, 37-38, 40 (less. 19, q. 221-223, less. 21, q.237); Manual, 286, 288 (sent. 85, 87-94). 98. RC, 301-303 (pt. 2, ch. 6, art. 9, 12). 99. BC, 47-48 (less. 25, q. 273, 276); Manual, 482 (sent. 8).

206

and the feet. The Tridentine catechism considers anointing the feet optional and includes the loins, representing concupiscence.100 Of the three books, the Roman Catechism solely catechizes

on ceremonies—the additional prayers recited throughout the rite. “In no other sacrament are

there more numerous prayers, and rightly so, since at no other time are the faithful more in need

to devout prayer.” Encouraging participation of those present, it recommends they “join their

prayers with the official prayers of the priest.”101

Matrimony

To obtain Matrimony’s graces more fully one should discern when choosing a husband or

wife, prepare for the rite, and fulfill ongoing spousal duties. The Roman Catechism, instructing

on the sacrament’s indissolubility, recommends selecting a partner based on their virtues and

compatibility, as opposed to beauty or wealth, to prevent future problems. Additionally, it points

pastors to Trent’s decrees and moral theology treatises to understand canonical impediments

related to the spousal choice, such as age, family connections, and religious affiliation.

Moreover, for preparation, one should understand Matrimony’s divine nature—far exceeding

that of a mere human agreement—and, for practicality, it counsels obtaining parental consent

and blessing.102

The Baltimore Catechism attributes unhappy marriages to hasty choices and unworthy

motives and advises praying for a pure intention when choosing a spouse. It instructs “Christ

raised marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament,” sanctifying spousal love but provides no further

emphasis on Matrimony’s divine nature. To receive “worthily,” one should “comply with the

100. Manual, 482 (sent. 6-7); RC, 302-303 (pt. 2, ch. 6, art. 10). 101. RC, 300-301 (pt. 2, ch. 6, art. 7). 102. Ibid., 337, 342 (pt. 2, ch. 8, art. 21, 30-32).

207

laws of the Church” including the prohibition of marrying a non-Catholic and being in a state of grace thereby requiring Penance and Holy Communion. Moreover, it recommends obtaining parental advice and a blessing from one’s pastor.103

Matrimony’s divine nature provides the basis for the Manual’s catechesis on disposition.

As such, one ought to “proceed with the greatest prudence and make the best possible preparation.” At a minimum, one must not be in mortal sin, and so receive Penance, and sanctify

their marriage by Holy Communion. The Manual reaffirms the ban on marrying non-Catholics

but explicates terms for exemption and includes extensive instruction on other impediments.

Furthermore, it recommends entering marriage with a pure intention, defined as “promoting the

honor and glory of God and the of their souls,” and provides a prayer for the

engaged.104

Duties or obligations contribute to the ongoing cultivation of Matrimony’s dispositions.

The Roman Catechism teaches accepted cultural attitudes and practices, such as husbands

financially providing for the family and serving as its chief disciplinarian and wives staying at

home raising children. It emphasizes the Christian duty of forgiveness to advocate forgiving an adulterer. Its instruction on sexual intercourse recommends periodic abstinence to cultivate

prayer discipline and not basing desires on sensual pleasure.105 The Baltimore Catechism does

not address the ongoing development of spousal dispositions while the Manual encourages

spouses “frequently to reflect on their duties and obligations as inculcated in the word of God,”

103. BC, 49-50 (less. 26, q. 283, 286, 288-291). 104. Manual, 431-432 (sent. 8-12). For instruction on the impediments to marriage, see 433-435. For the prayer for the engaged, see 435-436. 105. RC, 340-341, 343 (pt. 2, ch. 8, art. 26-27, 33-34).

208

citing Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and includes prayers for a husband, wife, couple, and

parents.106

For ceremonies, the Roman Catechism teaches the importance of the Matrimony rite,

emphasizing its necessity and, consequently, a priest and two witnesses, thereby preventing

clandestine or secret marriages. For further clarification, it refers pastors to Trent’s decrees.

Concerning ceremonies, these simply prohibit celebrating Matrimony at times of the year such as

Lent and condemn those who belittle its rites, while supporting local ceremonial customs.107

The Baltimore Catechism omits ceremonies, while the Manual, quoting the Third Plenary

Council’s pastoral letter and decree, endorses celebrating with the Nuptial Mass, requiring its

morning celebration and Nuptial Blessing and upholding Matrimony’s dignity and holiness.108

Woodman, in the The Bridal Wreath, cited additional church decrees, which encouraged the

blessing since it assisted couples in progressing in a sacred marriage and recommended the

Nuptial Mass with its ceremonies to “more fully receive” the sacrament. The church “adorns and

dignifies Matrimony with solemn rites, wherein its sanctity is more clearly set forth, and the

Grace which it offers is more lucidly explained.”109

Predecessor to the US Liturgical Movement

From the descriptive analysis emerge general aspects of the Manual’s catechetical focus.

Cumulatively, the Manual increases catechesis related to disposition and ceremonies. But for

106. Manual, 432-433 (sent. 17-28). For spousal prayers, see 450-453. 107. RC, 341 (pt. 2, ch. 8, art. 28-29); Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 755 (sess. 24, Canons on the sacrament of marriage, can. 11), 756, 759 (sess. 24, Canons on the reform of marriage, chs. 1, 10). 108. Manual, 432 (sent. 13-17). 109. Priest of the Congregation of St. Paul, 13, 9-16. Woodman quotes a Holy Congregation of the decree dated August 31, 1881, the Third Plenary Council decree n. 125 and Pastoral Letter, and the cited New York Fourth Provincial Council decree: ch. 11, art. 20.

209 each sacrament, it inconsistently covers the topics, conveying lack of an overall design or specific intention. For example, it omits catechesis for disposition for Baptism, solely focusing on ceremonies. It excludes instruction on ceremonies when introducing the sacraments and explains them sparsely for Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, and notably omits explaining Mass rituals.

Nonetheless, when the Manual teaches on disposition it upholds the Roman Catechism’s overall aim more than the Baltimore Catechism: To increase worthy reception of the sacraments.

It explains positive dispositions, their importance, and the respective roles of God and humans obtaining them. It encourages going beyond the minimum disposition when teaching on several sacraments. For instance, where the Baltimore Catechism equates minimum disposition to worthy reception for Confirmation, the Manual advocates more extensive preparation. Like the

Roman Catechism, Matrimony’s divine nature permeates its teaching on marriage preparation.

For Penance and Communion, it provides numerous spiritual exercises to cultivate the respective dispositions.

The Manual’s instructions on disposition include shortcomings, such as omitting instruction on Baptism, the role of godparents and sponsors in Confirmation, and the differences between spiritual and bodily healing in Extreme Unction. In most cases, it compensates for the omission by integrating the teaching into devotional prayers for sacramental preparation, thanksgiving, and ongoing awakening of responsibilities.

While the Manual explains ceremonies unevenly, its focus exceeds that of the Roman and

Baltimore catechisms, thereby providing teaching as directed by the former’s rhetoric. For instance, while the Roman Catechism briefly explains Baptism’s ceremonies, the Manual

210 significantly expands the descriptions and provides additional ones. It describes simple gestures and sacred objects viewed by attendees. Unlike the Baltimore Catechism, the Manual emphasizes the scriptural account of Pentecost to explain Confirmation, and stresses the importance of the Nuptial Mass and Blessing for Matrimony.

The liturgical prayer book genre determines the Manual’s approach to catechesis. The proximity and use of the liturgical rites certainly influenced its selection of catechetical material for its instructions. Likewise, aspects of the Roman Catechism find their way into prayers fostering disposition preceding and proceeding from the rites. For Confession, it integrates its catechesis in a simulated rite placed before the Rite of Penance. The immediate use of the

Manual for Confession and Communion warranted inclusion of spiritual exercises to foster appropriate dispositions.

The Manual’s instruction on disposition and ceremonies suggest an adult readership. For

Penance and Communion, spiritual exercises include varied adult life situations, requiring suitable maturity. Compared to the Baltimore Catechism, the Manual focuses less on memorization for Confession, aims for ongoing development of a disciplined and mature

Christian after Confirmation, and explains spousal duties in marriage. For ceremonies, it elaborates on Baptism’s rites to prepare parents.

A Scattered Voice

The Manual’s irregular approach to teaching sacramental dispositions and ceremonies relates to the nineteenth-century European liturgical movement and foreshadows twentieth- century understandings.

211

The nineteenth-century movement primarily desired to increase Christian’s understanding

of the liturgy. Accessibility to vernacular translations, especially of the Mass, eventually became

a prime tenet. However, in the mid-nineteenth century, the movement considered such

translations secondary, at best. Dom Prosper Guéranger, of the Benedictine Abbey of

Solesmes, France, the movement’s founding father, articulated the need to focus on its aim: an

increased understanding of the Church’s ceremonies:

What is really important is that our people, who have become so dechristianized, should once more learn “to think like the Church,” to come to an understanding of all the great, divinely revealed symbols which the Church so wisely uses. These symbols serve as instruments of faith and help us understand the . If this is accomplished, all the rest will follow.110

At the turn of the century, after the Holy See’s approval of the vernacular missal,

Lambert Beauduin, monk of Mont-César Abbey in and founder of the movement in his

homeland, influenced the Catholic Congress of Mechlin in 1909 to promote its use. “To give a

more liturgical character to ,” he recommended the Roman Missal’s preparatory

prayers, intended for priests, be translated for the laity to use as “preparation for, and thanksgiving after, Holy Communion.”111 Woodman had followed this method twenty years

earlier when compiling the Manual for US Catholics.

The twentieth-century liturgical movement adopted Pope Pius X’s call for active

participation in the liturgy, primarily in the Mass as opposed to other sacraments. Virgil Michel,

founder of the US movement, listed six aims for “A Program for a Liturgical Movement” with

110. Olivier Rousseau, The Progress of the Liturgy: An Historical Sketch from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Pontificate of Pius X, trans. The of Westminster Priory (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1951), 33. For Guéranger's opinion of vernacular translations, see 30-33. 111. Ibid., 165.

212

sacraments as fourth: “Acquaintance with and active association with the rites of the Sacraments

received or assisted at, and the spread of this knowledge among others.”112

In 1957, Godfrey Diekmann, Michel’s confrere and heir leading the cause, described the

liturgical movement’s aims related to the sacraments by advocating contemporary theological

advances while simultaneously returning to Aquinas’s principles. He asserts Aquinas balanced

sacraments as signs and causes. Signs suggest meanings and thereby instruct. Moreover, they

cause what they signify. They include a sacrament’s essential rite and all associated liturgical actions. After Aquinas, sacramental theology produced an “unbalanced emphasis” stressing causality and neglecting a sacrament’s sign aspect. An undue emphasis on causality equated

valid and worthy reception and separated sacramentals from sacraments.113

Identifying valid—not being in a state of mortal sin—with worthy reception does not require acts of faith or devotion. Diekmann highlights how the conflation of valid and worthy reception stems from neglecting sacraments’ sign, which aims to dispose or enliven the recipient.

Diekmann asserted the twentieth-century liturgical movement aimed to restore the balance between sign and cause and thereby highlighted worthy dispositions. “The Church must be concerned with encouraging the right disposition of faith and self-surrender; for she cannot forget that Christ too on earth was eager to work his most generous signs and wonders in favor of those whose faith was great.”114

112. Virgil Michel, "A Program for a Liturgical Movement," America, April 10, 1926, 614-615. 113. Godfrey Diekmann, Come, Let Us Worship (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961), 23-40. To these Diekmann added five others: Causality overshadowed the role of faith, created a mechanistic view, reduced the sacramental system to essentials, centered on individual benefits, and ignored the ultimate goal of worship, giving glory to God. 114. Ibid., 33, 31-33.

213

The difference between sacraments and sacramentals, both sacred signs, becomes

significant when viewed causally. The former confer grace; the latter do not. Their separation

leads to a neglect of sacramentals—the greater bulk of the church’s rites, including those

encircling a sacrament’s essential rite and elsewhere.115 Diekmann stresses the movement’s aim

to re-integrate them, thereby restoring the church’s sacred system, centered on the Eucharist,

surrounded by other sacraments, and supported by sacramentals. While their effectiveness

includes a recipient’s efforts, Diekmann stresses sacramentals’ ecclesial faculties. As signs of the

Church’s faith, they operate ex opere operantis Ecclesiae, and, while not conferring grace,

improve a recipient’s disposition for the sacraments. Moreover, restoring sacramentals to

sacraments maintains the union between Christ and the Church. Sacramentals “are in their own

minor but supplementary way a continuation of the priestly activity of Christ himself.”116

The Manual offered catechesis on key tenets of the liturgical movement. In addition to providing English translations of sacraments, it explained worthy disposition and ceremonies through its instructions and devotional prayers. It reveals the teaching Diekmann espouses, characterizing itself as a harbinger for the movement.

The Manual, a hybrid prayer book, assisted laity in bridging from the devotional to the liturgical life. Rousseau describes the movement’s efforts before the early twentieth-century pontificate of Pius X as “scattered voices.”117 The Manual’s unorganized and uneven fashion

performing its task, through its patchwork compilation of instructions from multiple English and

US devotional books, manifests this pioneering nature. For its instructions, Woodman utilized

115. Diekmann interprets the trend "denying the name sacramental to the rites and prayers surrounding the essential matter and form" as another indication of sacramental's isolation. Ibid., 34. 116. Ibid., 36, 33-36. 117. Rousseau, 149.

214

available sources with little direction. His efforts suited his milieu and provided an example of

devotional prayers and instructions evolving from popular usage to official church documents.

The Third Plenary Council’s prayer book restored an ancient church genre integrating

liturgical and catechetical content. It revived teaching from the Roman Catechism emphasizing

the importance of the subjective, the recipient’s disposition and church’s sacramentals,

complementing the Baltimore Catechism. Its instructions and English translations innovated, serving as an early linchpin for the liturgical movement. Its focus on the sacraments justifies its honorific as a sacramental. Because its efforts centered on the sacraments, Diekmann considered the liturgical movement part of the sacred system. He designated it a “sacramental .”118

The Manual possessed key characteristics of a sacramental. Created by the church, it educated

about the church’s sacraments and intended to dispose the faithful by cultivating their faith and

devotion.

118. Diekmann, Come, Let Us Worship, 25.

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion

In the early 1950s, the layman John O’Connor, associate director of Fine Arts at the

Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh, desired to write an article about the Manual of Prayers. Writing to the Paulist archivist, he requested information about Clarence Woodman, because “no priest I have met knows who he was or anything about him.”1 His bewilderment illustrates Woodman’s

and the prayer book’s obscurity in the mid-twentieth century. Sixty years later, the prayer book

has receded further into the dustbin of history. As such, the Manual exists as an obscure artifact

of US Catholic history. Its commission by the nation’s bishops at the 1884 Third Plenary

Council, publication from 1889 to the 1950s, and subsequent public court record reveals an

object hidden in plain view.

This study raises the Manual from obscurity and positions it at the crossroads of multiple

historical and theological currents. Depending on perspective, various descriptions emerge.

From the vantage point of Catholic devotional life, the Manual of Prayers classifies as a

devotional prayer book published late in the nineteenth-century Catholic Revival. Part of a long

and varied tradition of Catholic prayer books dating from the twelfth century, its compiler

adopted the revival’s manual genre, as the book’s title and size indicates. While most church

officials supported devotions that did not contradict church doctrine, nonetheless, their spread,

quality, and quantity caused concerns about lack of lay understanding of church-liturgical prayer.

Intended for US Catholics steeped in devotions, distinguished from non-Catholics or the

nominally Catholic, the Manual provided devotional prayers alongside mostly liturgical ones.

1. O'Connor to Rev. Joseph Malloy, November 15, 1953, Woodman Papers, PFA. 215 216

Although the US bishops’ prayer book appears as a manual of devotional prayers, its substantial

content of Roman liturgical rites introduces a new genre of church-sanctioned liturgical books

for the laity.

When viewed from the twentieth-century liturgical movement, the Manual of Prayers

laid the groundwork for widespread access to liturgical prayer books, especially missals. These

liturgical books help laity understand and participate in the liturgy, while the Roman liturgical

books assisted the presider. Intended for the laity, the Manual derived 70 percent of its content

from the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual and aimed to restore liturgy to the center of the

church’s life—the liturgical movement’s principle aim. While some Catholic Revival prayer

books included instructions and English translations for some liturgical rites and Charleston

Bishop John England’s 1820 Roman Missal translation predates it, the Manual stands apart as

the first liturgically-based prayer book commissioned by the US bishops for the laity. It

addressed the liturgical movement’s key tenets by providing English translations for the rituals

of six sacraments and other rites; cultivating readers’ dispositions for reception of the sacraments through its instructions, especially on ceremonies; and encouraging frequent reception of communion. It links the nineteenth-century Catholic Revival manual genre and the twentieth- century missal and presages the promulgation of the General Instructions and Introductions ushered in after the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

The Manual belongs with other nineteenth-century European “scattered voices,”

experimenting with methods within then-existing constraints to increase lay participation in the church’s liturgy. Olivier Rousseau describes the nineteenth-century liturgical movement’s growth beyond its French origins. Its emergence in England begins within the Anglican Church

217

and the Oxford movement, the latter aiming for a return to patristic sources and restoration of liturgy’s importance. Begun as an early- to mid-nineteenth century intellectual movement, it later was directed to the general Anglican population, understanding the “most appropriate means for impressing Catholic ideas on the minds of men was the restoration of the ceremonies.”2 It

affected by giving prominence to The Book of Common Prayer and reforming

hymns so that Anglicans outpaced “the average English Catholic” in understanding the liturgy. It

influenced English and American Catholicism through its adherents who converted to

Catholicism, most notably Blessed John Henry Newman.3 Woodman, the Manual’s compiler and

influenced by Newman and the Oxford movement, may be considered a member of this English

liturgical movement.

From the political perspective of emerging European nation-states and the United States

in the nineteenth century, the Manual of Prayers comes under the category of a national prayer

book commissioned by a bishops’ council and including treasured US Catholic customs. Thomas

Wangler notes that it and the Baltimore Catechism reflect the Americanist bishops’ orthodoxy

while claiming they asserted their Americanism in political and social issues. However, an

examination of the Manual’s contents reveals the aim to feature early US prayer customs and

contributions. Its devotions and instructions highlight the spirituality of the original English

Garden-of-the-Soul Catholics. Its US Douay-Rheims scriptural translations honored Kenrick’s

scholarly work and made it accessible to Catholics. Devotional customs from the US Catholic

founding fathers, a past which Catholic immigrants in part inherit, supplemented the liturgy. The

US bishops desired to replace Catholic Revival devotional prayer books, many retaining aspects

2. Rousseau, 89. 3. Ibid., 82-96.

218

of the Garden of the Soul, with liturgical prayer—a “garden of paradise.”4 The book may be

described as American in the sense that it introduces a new liturgically-based spirituality for the

laity while also designating core national Catholic prayer traditions. Hence it fostered a new

Catholic identity different from the Catholic milieu dominated by devotions.

When contrasting the US bishops’ Manual of Prayers with its English counterpart, two

approaches emerge. The English bishops authorized and anthologized prized English devotions

in their Manual of Prayers, producing a national devotional book, despite their proximity to the

home-bred Oxford movement. The US bishops’ Manual of Prayers attempted to direct the public

worship of US Catholics, not with approved devotional prayers—attempts understood to have

failed in the past—but by providing the church’s liturgical prayer forms augmented with better-

regarded US devotions, placing the book on the vanguard of church reform. The initiative

prompted The Irish Monthly to conclude “nothing like it has been produced on this side of the

Atlantic.”5 Whereas the English national prayer book preserves the past, its American

counterpart risks cultivating a new spirituality. The limited Catholic heritage in the United States

and confluence of different immigrant customs in the nineteenth century, coupled with an

innovative American spirit, compelled the US bishops to adopt new theological advances.

Changing adherents’ spiritual life requires more than authoritative decrees. Mary

Heimann downplays the theory that the Holy See launched the nineteenth-century Catholic

Revival. The could assist it by granting indulgences for approved devotions, beatifying admired persons, selecting bishops, and promoting particular books. She concludes historians have not satisfactorily accounted for the devotional phenomenon and suggests its attraction to the

4. Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV, 121-122 (art. 221). 5. The Irish Monthly, July 1891.

219

poor and marginalized explains its widespread growth, supporting a more “bottom-up” theory.6

However, Heimann excludes the promotion of the church’s liturgy as a means of influence for church officials—the US bishops’ aim. Situated in governance between the Holy See and

Catholics, bishops represent both the universal and local church. The Third Plenary Council decreed that the Manual include parts of the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual but not specifically local prayer customs, as had the English bishops. Woodman and Gibbons oversaw their inclusion. Enabling access to the church’s liturgy and honoring early US prayer customs increased the US bishops’ ability to influence the spiritual life of their Catholics.

As a national church good, the Manual of Prayers is considered intellectual property, supplied not in response to existing markets, though it aimed to generate new demand. The bishops neglected to look beyond copyright’s commercial benefits and grasp how it protected works from modifications to preserve their teaching role. This defect severely affected the

book’s dissemination. The bishops desired to improve the laity’s prayer life, going beyond merely meeting the small demand existing in some quarters for liturgically-based prayer books.

Most late-nineteenth-century Catholics, unaware of the newly available liturgical prayer forms,

remained unaccustomed to their usage. The Manual—a high-quality work, attractive to new

users, favorably reviewed, and endorsed by the highest episcopal authorities—required

marketing endeavors to educate customers on its merits and modern business plans to achieve a

national market and respond to evolving conditions.

The Manual of Prayers, while not a catechism, provided significant catechesis about the

church’s liturgy, which itself imparts instruction, allowing its designation as a catechetical book

6. Heimann, "Catholic Revivalism in Worship and Devotion," 80-83.

220 and an integral component of the Third Plenary Council’s catechetical system. Its instructions, devotions, and liturgical prayer forms taught church doctrine, explained the liturgy, addressed moral formation, and provided opportunities for adult Catholics to pray using the church’s liturgy, fulfilling the four tasks of catechesis. It integrated church teaching within and around devotional prayers—then the most prevalent form of Catholic prayer—to inculturate or adapt

Catholic doctrines to a particular culture.

In view of its liturgical aspects, the Manual of Prayers met the requirements of a sacramental object or ceremonial according to Tridentine understanding. A ceremonial creates a reverential environment and assists Christians’ understanding of the sacraments. Numerous bishops and reviewers approved the Manual’s form and valued its dignified appearance, attesting to its capacity to foster a sacred setting, and its contents aimed to educate, both enabling more fruitful reception of the sacraments. While teaching sacraments’ objective nature remains important, a complete catechetical approach also cultivates a person’s capacity for reception.

Sacraments exist for people, and a sacramental’s sole purpose is to create environments conducive to reception. Unlike the Roman and Baltimore catechisms’ instruction on the sacraments, the Manual of Prayers concentrated almost 70 percent of its catechesis on dispositions and ceremonies, emphasizing sacraments’ subjective nature. While ceremonies exist to foster reception, and essentially do not require explanation, nonetheless, the ritual acts administered in the Latin language remained unfamiliar to most Catholics.

The Manual’s catechesis based on the liturgy and adult readership complement its counterpart, the Baltimore Catechism. The nineteenth-century US councils, specifically the Third

Plenary Council decrees, and Cardinal James Gibbons perceived a national catechism and prayer

221

book as a set. As Berard Marthaler proposes, the Manual is the US bishops’ first adult

“catechism.”

The Manual’s limited reception and subsequent obscurity suggests the effort failed when compared with the widely-published and well-known Baltimore Catechism. This study has identified numerous obstacles which prevented the prayer book’s dissemination—notably its checkered publication history. Beginning with the financially unstable Catholic Publication

Society (CPS), the Manual perhaps failed because a bishop did not secure its copyright, CPS’s collapse, and the ensuing control of a delusional priest, James Meagher of the Christian Press

Association.

The Manual’s novelty, a liturgical prayer book for a laity unaccustomed to such prayer, contributed to its lack of dissemination. The book was published too early to benefit from the educational efforts of the twentieth-century liturgical movement, which directed Catholic laity to increased participation in the liturgy. Reviewers predicted it would remain limited to educated

Catholics if average ones did not accept it.

Related to its initial commissioning, the book may have included too much liturgy. By aligning the Manual with Catholic Revival tomes, its sponsors replaced numerous devotions— placed in the revival books to attract as many customers as possible—with equivalent-sized liturgical content from the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual as directed. Reviewers also identified the challenges of publishing a 792-page book. The current devotional market dominated the bishops’ thinking in contrast to the new lay spirituality they envisioned.

222

Since the Manual was published only in English, the substantial German-speaking

population was largely excluded from benefitting from it. Benziger, representative of the latter, dominated Catholic publishing in the 1890s and did not publish the Manual of Prayers.

Competent episcopal management could have addressed many, if not all, such obstacles.

Matters not addressed included properly securing its copyright and a master publisher, developing an abridgement and teaching aids to increase market demand, and producing editions for ethnic groups. The bishops’ attempt to alter Catholic prayer habits required adjustments to the Manual because no demand existed to define market requirements for a liturgically-based lay prayer book. While a novel product can create demand, the “if we build it, they will come” market strategy rarely works. Just as the proliferation of Catholic schools created demand for the

Baltimore Catechism and its size and lack of copyright enforcement enabled proliferation, properly managing the catechism would have improved its reception well before its revised edition in 1941.

In the 1890s the episcopate’s internal divisions on a range of issues prevented proper administration of the Manual of Prayers and the Baltimore Catechism. The books’ management depended heavily upon the working relationship between Baltimore’s Cardinal Gibbons and

New York’s Archbishop Corrigan. A national episcopal organization did not emerge until the late-1910s and its capacity to manage nationwide catechetical efforts did not develop until the mid-1930s. By then, the bishops focused on updating the Baltimore Catechism. A national prayer book would have required another product development effort or a repurchase because the publisher, John Murphy, revised and copyrighted the Manual in 1930. When commissioning a

223

national prayer book and catechism for the laity, the Third Plenary Council bishops did not consider their ongoing administration needs.

While lacking widespread adoption and falling short of its initial aims, the Manual of

Prayers benefited some Catholic laity. Throughout the twentieth century, Catholics’ understanding of the liturgy and participation in the rites grew as the liturgical movement’s educational efforts increased and with the Second Vatican Council reforms. It would be hard to claim the Manual of Prayers played no role in this change in the spiritual life of Catholics.

The Manual of Prayers’ early publication history and lack of management oversight hindered its dissemination. Contrasting the nineteenth-century prayer book’s history with that of

Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers, its twentieth-century counterpart, reveals that even with an episcopal organization a national prayer book would fail to achieve its intended aims—if the bishops do not promote it.

The 1984 promulgation of De Benedictionibus, one of the last of several Roman liturgical books implementing the liturgical agenda of the Second Vatican Council, prompted the creation of Catholic Household. The era of liturgical innovation immediately after the council had subsided. A growth of scholarship related to the liturgy and national, diocesan, and parish liturgical ministry programs resulted in more educated leadership, lay and clergy, thereby improving the liturgical experience. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’

Committee on the Liturgy oversaw Catholic Household’s compilation at the end of this period—

“a time of growth in ownership and understanding of the new liturgy by the church at large.”7

7. Rita Ferrone, Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (New York: Paulist Press, 2007), 65, 65-67. Ferrone defines the period from 1975 to 1984 as a "deepening" of the Second Vatican Council's reforms.

224

Like the Third Plenary Council bishops, the committee desired to deepen the prayer

practices of US Catholics. The nineteenth-century Manual aimed to instruct the laity on liturgical

prayer. Catholic Household advocates that laity, especially parents, lead prayer in their family or

home, including liturgical prayer, to increase the quality of parish participation. With the intended purchasers unaccustomed to such practices and balancing an onslaught of demands on family time, the US bishops again created a national prayer book with little existing market, requiring them to promote actively the product if they hoped to achieve their aims.

A polarizing and contentious environment emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s, bringing the renewal resulting from the Second Vatican Council into question. Efforts shifted from deepening the reform to correctness of vernacular translations in liturgical texts and doctrinal exactness in catechetical ones; reforms were directed to improve comprehension of the faith in church liturgies and religious education programs.8

Some laity adopted Catholic Household, but its dissemination, while impressive, has not

been the desired “every Catholic household.”9 Its sales volume remains significantly below a

catechism. Promotion and educational efforts are required. Unlike the Manual, the bishops’

publisher safeguards Catholic Household. Not equipped to reach and educate individual

Catholics, the bishops’ marketing division promotes the book to church leadership, such as

8. Ibid., 68-81. Ferrone describes the period from 1984 to 2005 as one consisting of conflict and, to a lesser extent, continuity with the council's reforms. 9. The US bishops reported selling 65,000 copies for the book's first fifteen years (1989-2004), penetrating less than 1% of the desired "every [US] Catholic houseshold," estimated at over 20 million. See Committee on Divine Worship, Ten Years of the Newsletter: 2001-2010 (Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004), 195; Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers, 3; Estimates for US Catholic Households in 2010 range from 21 million (based on the average registered households/parish and number of parishes) to 26 million (based on the US Catholic population and average household size), see "U.S. Catholic Parishes Grow in Size and Diversity," The CARA Report 16, no. 3 (Winter 2011): 1; The Official Catholic Directory (Berkeley Heights, NJ: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 2011), 2061.

225 pastors, directors of religious education, and youth ministers, and oversaw its revision published in 2007. Under these circumstances, most adult Catholics receive it as a gift from church personnel, many as a wedding or baptismal present, or other publishers print some of its prayers, using the book as an anthology of approved prayer forms.10 Catholic Household’s attempt to improve the quality of liturgical participation and subsequent lack of dissemination resembles that of the Manual of Prayers.

The poor cooperation among the US bishops resulting in the Manual’s dissemination woes should not overshadow their support for its creation. Some nineteenth-century bishops desired to place liturgy at the center of a Christian’s life, conveying a broader understanding of catechesis than that of the Baltimore Catechism. The Manual’s history provides a more complete picture of the bishops’ catechetical approach—one that innovates, honors local traditions, and inculturates. Criticisms of the 1941 Baltimore Catechism revision highlight the innovative nature of the 1889 Manual of Prayers. For the former, critics questioned the bishops for limiting catechesis solely to the catechism genre and ignoring advances in the liturgical movement—both items addressed by the Third Plenary Council.11

The Manual of Prayers’ story demonstrates that the church’s efforts to teach and “make disciples” includes risks and foibles, thereby requiring constant vigilance. It includes the limited foresight of Gibbons and Woodman, the endurance of Kehoe, and the misguided acts of

Meagher. It is a human story. It teaches about the ongoing nature of catechesis, the listening

10. The bishops' publication office led the effort for the 2007 revision, not the Committees on Divine Worship, Evangelization and Catechesis, and Laity, Marriage, Family Life & Youth, see Committee on Divine Worship, 195; see also ibid., 358, 371-372; Paul Henderson (former Executive Director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Publishing), in discussion with the author, December 16, 2014. 11. Marthaler identifies the "pedagogical inadequacies and theological shortcomings" of the catechism genre within the context of advances in kerygmatic theology, bliblical studies, and the liturgical movement. Marthaler, The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre, 119.

226

required, and the futility of exacting control versus the wisdom of providing direction. Bishops

legislating at the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore desired to redirect the prayer life of the

faithful by incorporating them more deeply into the church’s liturgy—an ambitious goal.

Commissioning a liturgically-based prayer book initiated steps toward their aim but did not

complete it. The Manual served as a means for this end. The bishops failed to control the book’s

creation and dissemination, affecting its ability to elevate the laity’s prayer life. The Manual’s

story demonstrates the necessity of directing while making adjustments. This entails providing

useful tools, like the national prayer book, but allowing freedom for their usage and adapting in

response to needs. Teaching implies delegation and an education for the sheep and the shepherd.

The story of the Manual of Prayers illustrates that catechetical leadership needs to judge

constantly their methods and tools in view of desired aims.

APPENDIX ONE

Third Plenary Council of Baltimore Prayer Book Decrees

Before the Third Plenary Council opened on November 9, 1884, theologians drafted

proposed decrees in October. The schema included seven prayer book articles (nos. 244-250)

which the bishops debated on November 29, 1884. They voted to remove the opening paragraph

(244a), articles 245 and 250, approved minor changes to 244b and 249, and made significant

changes to 246 thru 248. After deliberating, they drafted four decrees, (nos. 224-227) in the final numbering. When the Holy See’s Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith examined the entire body of the US bishops’ draft legislation, its officials made minor changes to the prayer book articles (no. 220-223), and approved the final prayer book decrees on September 21, 1885.1

Table 7. Third Plenary Council prayer book articles Schema decretorum Private decrees Public decrees (244-250) (224-227) (220-223)a 244a 244b 224 (minor) 220 245 246a 225a 221a 246b, 247, 248a 225b 221b 248b 226 222 249 227 (minor) 223 250

1. Schema Decretorum Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884, Pamphlet, Archbishops General Synods and Councils, AAB, 64-66; Private meeting notes and decrees: Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi, Habiti a Die IX Novembris usque ad Diem VII Decembris A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1884), lxx, 70-72; Final, Public decrees: Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV, 120-122. Subsequent quotations refer to the Schema Decretorum, private meeting notes, and final decrees (in italics) cited here. The author is indebted to Msgr. John Alessandro for translations of the notes and Schema Decretorum. 227

In the opening paragraph (244a), the draft reiterated the Second Plenary Council decree requiring episcopal approbation for prayer books but acknowledged current circumstances necessitated additional action. The bishops voted to remove the following:

[Schema, 244a:] The Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore appropriately condemned written errors, with which, for us [“in our experience”], Prayer Books quite often abound, as follows: “For printers, gratifying their own views or catering to the imprudent piety of writers, have on their own published several such books, in which there appear certain prayer formulas and Litanies that are inappropriate and less seemly, sometimes even tasteless and corrupt, to the point that they nauseate and anger the learned. Now, however, by Church law books dealing with Religion and the worship of God are prohibited from going to press without the approval of the Ordinary. If such works appear without consulting the Bishop or against his wishes, one is to abstain from reading them.” (No. 502) At this time, however, we are impelled to impose a more effective law.

The bishops retained 244b, describing the books requiring episcopal approbations, initially suggesting books of “faith, morals, liturgy and ecclesiastical policy.” As Bishop James

O’Connor, vicar apostolic of , proposed, the wording “faith and morals” below was adopted not “religion” of the schema draft. They added a final sentence requiring books’ new editions also obtain approbations. The Holy See made no changes, producing the final decree:

220. Prayer-books, whose number is almost infinite, are frequently composed by writers who are not experts, and stray far from the true and sound norm of prayer which the Church presents in the sacred liturgy. We therefore command that all such books be subject to examination by the synod of bishops or other learned and devout men. Printers shall not dare to publish such books, or Sacred Scripture, catechisms, stories of miracles, prayer sheets, or any books in general that explicitly treat of faith or morals unless these have been subjected to the required censorship and bear the Ordinary’s permission for their printing. Thus readers may know that nothing is to be found in them that is offensive to faith or morals. We decree the same concerning the publications of new editions of any such books.2

2. This author found three English translations of the Third Plenary Council's final prayer book edicts and chose Short's, being the most recent. Chinnici and Dries, eds., Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community, 90. English translation attributed to William J. Short, OFM; Busch, 456-458; Diekmann, "Lay Participation in the Liturgy of the Church," 146-147. 228

To theologians, present conditions warranted more than episcopal approbation and

necessitated lay access to liturgical prayers. No matter how well intentioned, successful, or

appropriate their devotional book prayers appeared, publishers could not produce the quality

inherent in the church’s liturgical prayers. The meeting notes do not record the bishops’ reasoning for omitting the theologians’ judgment:

[Schema, 245:] In today’s situation, it does not seem sufficient to us that theologian Examiners, in healing the stylistic defects and vices that are sometimes more serious in prayer books, use a doctor’s touch; (Ibid. No. 504) since, in as much as they are articulating the observations of private individuals, they cannot perfectly express the strength and sweetness of true and Catholic piety. It is from the Author and Completer of the faith, who lives always to intercede for us (Heb. 7:25) that the Church receives the wondrous and divine form of prayer which in every age must be taught to the faithful. The law of prayer [lex supplicandi] establishes the law of believing [legem credendi], and in an absolutely sublime way draws Christians to honor God in all things through Jesus (1 Pet. 4:11) in spirit and in truth.

The bishops’ commission recommended omission of 246’s first three sentences. In

response, Bishop Martin Marty, vicar apostolic of Dakota, and Fort Wayne Bishop Joseph

Dwenger urged retaining the first two. The bishops accepted with minor word re-ordering the

first paragraph of 246 (246a), finally published as 221a:

221[a]. It is most regrettable that many Catholics are almost completely ignorant of the rule and form of prayer. In this age of ours, in which people eagerly seek worldly things and have difficulty understanding the things of God, it is incumbent on priests especially that often, from the pulpit and in teaching catechism to children, they should explain faithfully and clearly the rites and prayers of the Church.

They agreed to omit sentence three, expressing the importance of books in assisting priest’s

educational efforts:

[Schema, 246a, sentence 3:] Their words, however, will bear greater fruit and their listeners will progress much more in their knowledge of sacred matters if they have books at hand, at home and at church, that can express the blossoming, strength and meaning of the sacred Liturgy.

229

The private meeting notes do not explain the extensive editing of the remaining of 246, 247, and the first part of 248 (248a), specifying the use of the Roman Missal, Breviary, and Ritual as a

source for lay prayer books. The theologians explained each book’s value for the laity, noting the

priest’s role as teacher for the sacramental rites in the Roman Ritual. They summarized liturgy’s

role, using the metaphor of a natural spring, providing living water to a thirsty laity.

[Schema, 246b:] There is, therefore, a need for a book that can in some way serve lay persons simultaneously as a Missal, a Ritual and a Breviary. Of course, Missals have already been published many times in the vernacular so that, in this way, the mysteries of this most holy sacrifice may be revealed to participating lay persons who, through the ministry of the priest, in a certain sense offer the sacrifice of praise. (cf. Council of Trent, Session 22, Decree on Reform [Canons on the sacrifice of the mass?], c. 8) And furthermore, insofar as Bishops and individual pastors must explain to the faithful the power, use and rites of the sacraments, in the vernacular, if necessary, so that they might approach them with greater reverence and spiritual devotion (cf. Council of Trent, Session 24, Decree on Reform, c. 7. Roman Ritual, Concerning Those Things that are to be Observed), no one would fail to see that their task would be easier if certain sections, piously and prudently excerpted from the Roman Ritual, were added to prayer books.

[Schema, 247:] Finally, there is no doubt that the most perfect of all forms of prayer is the Roman Breviary. Indeed, those who follow it praise God in psalms, hymns and inspired songs; the word of Christ abundantly dwells in them as they attentively and reverently read the sacred allocutions, the writings of the Fathers and the acts of the Saints; when they recite the verses and responses, the peace of Christ, to which they are called as one body, rises in their hearts; and in the prayers they worthily and rightly thank God through Christ, and ask for all good things in an appropriate way (Col. 3:15ff.). That divine psalmody in no small measure praises God but provides in abundance all those things that help to raise mind and heart to God.

[Schema, 248a:] We have known rightly that all the hidden treasures of the Sacred Liturgy cannot be revealed in the pages of the Book of Prayers, but we have been able to select some of the more precious pearls. We consider it opportune to divide deeply that spring of the Savior so that all those who thirst might be able to draw from the waters springing up to eternal life.

230

The final decree focuses on the priest’s role in explaining the Mass and Ritual rites and the overall impact of the Roman liturgical books and replaced the natural spring metaphor with a garden, making accessible liturgy’s most precious flowers to the laity:

221[b]. The holy Tridentine synod has already reminded us that the pastors and others having the care of souls should frequently explain those things that are read during the Mass, especially the mysteries of the most holy sacrifice itself, so that while the sacrifice of the New Law is offered by the ministry of the priest the faithful themselves may also be made participants, and thus receive more abundant graces and spiritual fruits. (Sess. 22, Canons on the sacrifice of the mass, c. 8). In the same way, the Sacred Synod ordered that each pastor should piously and prudently explain, also in the vernacular language, the power, use and rites of the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of mind. (sess. 24, Decree on Reform, c. 7). In regard to the norm of prayer in general, it is obvious that the Roman Breviary is the most perfect of all, since in a wonderful way it combines divine eloquence, writings of the Fathers and sacred hymns in one prayer. It is clear to everyone how useful it would be to the faithful if selected prayers and rubrics of both the Missal and Breviary as well as the Ritual should be accurately translated in books of prayers that they could have at hand. We know that all those treasures cannot be fully assembled within the pages of a single prayer book, but it would be useful to select some of the more precious ones, so that the sacred liturgy’s buds and flowers, like a garden of paradise, might be presented to the minds of readers.

The bishops declined to express concerns for well-established devotional prayers, approved by the Holy See and published in the Raccolta. Hence, they rejected the rest of 248:

[Schema, 248b:] It is in no way our intention to reject the rules of confraternities and appropriate prayers of devotion, as they say, especially those that have been enriched and honored with indulgences and which have been collected in the book entitled Raccolta, and exist throughout the universal Church, such as, e.g., the Way of the Cross, the Most Holy Rosary of the B.V.M., etc. On the contrary, they are set forth genuinely and in a fitting place in prayer books. Bishops, Rectors of churches and confessors, however, should see to it that, under the rubric of new devotions, suspiciously superstitious practices not be introduced or the worship of the Church suffer harm. Consequently, every practice or customary devotion should be subject entirely to the judgment of the Bishop. Instead, the bishops’ revised decree highlighted their proposed prayer book’s role as a source for official English translations of Latin or English prayers:

231

222. It is well known that the prayers used by the faithful frequently suffer from defects of language and sometimes depart from the path of sound doctrine. The same prayers, either written originally in English or translated from Latin into English, frequently do not agree among themselves, and do not conform at all with the original exemplar. Therefore, we order that in the aforesaid prayer book there should be reproduced with the highest degree of accuracy exemplars of all the prayers, hymns, psalms and chants which are commonly recited in the presence of the faithful in church, and that the Bishop carefully ensure that none of the aforementioned prayer formulas should be published unless they agree exactly with the exemplar.

The Council fathers accepted schema article 249, adding the clause placing Archbishop

Gibbons as the prayer book committee’s president:

223. We consider that a Prayer Book prepared according to the norm above would be very useful and welcome to the faithful entrusted to us. We have decided therefore that a committee of the Fathers of this Plenary Council shall be established, with the Most Rev. Apostolic Delegate as president, which will entrust this most important matter to men who are pious and expert in sacred liturgy, and will ensure that this work be completed as soon as possible. The group of Bishops will subject the book to rigorous examination and will then send it to the Most Rev. Archbishops, who in turn will approve the book, as we said in regard to the catechism, and will send it to press.

The bishops omitted the final schema article, 250, related to religious images for churches, and, to a lesser extent, for the home:

[Schema, 250):] A great deal of usefulness is provided by sacred images that portray the Gospel mysteries, whether the history of Christ being born, dying, rising, returning to heaven, or the life, virtues and miracles of the Most Blessed Virgin and the other Saints. For they foster piety, stir up in the faithful a spirit of gratitude and a feeling of holy love, whenever one reflects on how many benefits Christ the Lord has bestowed on us, and how wondrous God is in his Saints (cf. Council of Trent, Session 25, Decree on the Invocation of the Saints). In order, however, to avoid abuses, such images, by order of the Council of Trent, are not to be set up in churches unless the Bishop has approved them. For similar reasons, the same is to be said, to a certain extent, about sacred images, of an nearly infinite number, that are sold in Catholic bookstores, and which foster private devotion by being affixed to the walls of Catholic homes or used in prayer as a kind of aid to mind and memory. This indeed would in itself be praiseworthy, if it were not for the fact that often the images are so badly representative as well as tasteless and coarse that they present Christ the Lord and his most holy mother and faithful friends to be viewed with horror and derision rather than to be honored.

232

Wherefore we earnestly exhort Bishops to be zealously vigilant through Priests deputed to examine and correct books lest such images be disseminated among the faithful with great shame to the name Catholic and scandal to pious men.

233

APPENDIX TWO

Manual of Prayers Business Agreement

AGREEMENT made the the 24th day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty- nine, between The Catholic Publication Society Company, of the City of New York, of the first part, and John Murphy & Co., of Baltimore, Maryland, of the second part. In consideration of the delivery by the party of the first part to the party of the second part of one set electrotype plates to be used for the printing of “A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity,” prepared and published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, by the party of the second part, only; the said party of the second part agrees to pay to the party of the first part the sum of twenty-seven hundred dollars ($2,700), and the said part of the second part further agrees that the said set of plates for the printing of the said book, entitled : “A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity,” as aforesaid, shall be used for printing by the party of the second part only; and the said party of the second part further agrees not to make nor allow any one else to make duplicate plates of the said set of electrotype plates; and the said party of the second part further agrees not to let the said set of electrotype plates go out of their possession or control for any purpose whatsoever; and the party of the second part further agrees not to print any books from the said set of plates without the name of the party of the second part, as publisher, upon the title-page nor with the name of any other person or corporation as publisher; and the said party of the second part agrees, upon breach of any of the foregoing agreements to forfeit all right to the use of the said set of electrotype plates and to pay to the party of the first part the sum of five thousand dollars, not as a penalty, but as liquidated damages. It is further agreed that the party of the first part will furnish an electrotype plate or plates of any and all pages, if any corrections are made in them by the proper authorities, at the rate of twenty-five cents per page, and that the party of the first part will not sell a set of plates to any other publisher without the consent, in writing, of the party of the second part, and will not print any books without the name of the party of the first part, as publisher, on the title-page. It is further agreed that the retail price for plainly-bound copies shall be one dollar and twenty-five cents and a royalty of six cents for each and every copy sold shall be paid to the ordinary of the diocese in which the book is printed and published. It is further agreed that the greatest discount allowed to the trade shall not exceed forty per cent., and the greatest discount allowed to the clergy and religious shall not exceed twenty- five per cent., except when the trade purchases five hundred dollars’ worth at any one time, then an extra ten per cent., may be allowed, and except when the trade purchases one thousand dollars’ worth at any one time, then fifty per cent. discount may be allowed. It is further agreed that the agreements as to furnishing plates of corrected page, prices and discounts are independent agreements which the parties hereto pledge their honors to perform.

234

In witness whereof, the party of the first part has caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, and these presents to be signed by its president, and the party of the second part has [SEAL] hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first-above written.

Lawrence Kehoe, President. John Murphy & Co., By Isaac Kilner.

235

APPENDIX THREE

Testimonials from Archbishops and Bishops [on the Manual of Prayers]1

From the Archbishop of New York

The Manual of Prayers, compiled in accordance with the decrees of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, is a very creditable work, both in point of form and of matter. I warmly recommend its use to the faithful of this Diocese. † M. A. Corrigan, Archbishop of New York.

ARCHBISHOP’S HOUSE, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, JULY 27, 1889.

Lawrence Kehoe, Esq., Manager Catholic Publication Society Co.:

MY DEAR SIR: – Some days ago I received from you a copy of the new Manual of Prayers, prepared by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. It gives me great gratification to pronounce the work to be, beyond all comparison, the most complete prayer-book in the English language. Independently of its utility as a manual of prayers, it will be found invaluable as a book of reference and instruction, containing admirable translations of the most important portions of the Liturgy of the Church. To priests it will be for this reason very useful in explaining the doctrines and ceremonies of the Sacraments and Sacramentals. I wish the work the great success which its intrinsic merits and the high authority from which it emanates, as well as your enterprise in publishing it in such excellent style, deserve and remain,

Yours sincerely in Christ, † P.J. Ryan, Archbishop of Philadelphia.

1. Transcription of: Catholic Book Talk, "Testimonials from Archbishops and Bishops," February 1890, 10-14. The New York Public Library possesses a set of Catholic Book Talks, cataloged as "Catholic Publication Society Book Sale Catalogs, 1888-1893." 236

ST. MARY’S CATHEDRAL, 628 California Street SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., AUGUST 6, 1889.

DEAR SIRS: – I beg to acknowledge, with thanks, the copy of The Manual of Prayers which you so kindly sent me. I trust the book will meet with that approbation which its , as a manual of devotion, deserves.

Yours sincerely, † P.W. Riordan, per Secretary.

DIOCESE OF MANCHESTER, MANCHESTER, N. H., JULY 23, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – The elegantly bound copy of the new Prayer-Book, kindly forwarded by you, was received. I need not say that I am grateful therefor. I am sure both clergy and laity will find this little volume valuable, not only as a book of prayer but also of instruction.

Yours respectfully, † Denis M. Bradley, Bishop of Manchester.

WILMINGTON, DEL., JULY 24, 1889.

To Mr. Lawrence Kehoe, Manager of Catholic Publication Society:

MY DEAR SIR: – I beg to acknowledge the arrival of The Manual of Prayers, and to thank you very heartily for the same. The book long ago received a pretty thorough examination at my hands, and won my complete approval. I at first thought I had one thing against it; namely, that it was going to be too fat. But the copy in hand is of such very convenient size, besides being in every way so handsome, that my one objection is proven to have been wholly groundless. It remains merely to wish that the book may very soon come into the hands of all Catholics, to be by them devoutly and diligently used. I am, very faithfully, your servant in Xt, † A.A. Curtis, Bishop of Wilmington.

237

BISHOP’S HOUSE OGDENSBURG, July 26, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – Please accept my sincerest thanks for the copy of A Manual of Prayers, published by you for the use of the Catholic laity, and published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. We have waited long for this Manual, and our reward is all the greater, for the book is superior to any I know, and complete both in type, style, and formularies of prayers and devotions. Very sincerely in Christ, † E.P. Wadhams, Bishop of Ogdensburg.

J.M.J. EPISCOPAL RESIDENCE BURLINGTON, VT., July 1889.

The Catholic Publication Society:

DEAR SIR: – Many thanks for the Manual of Prayers. I consider it as an admirable work, admirably got up. Respectfully and truly yours, † L. de Goesbriand, Bishop of Burlington, Vt.

EPISCOPAL RESIDENCE, 31 AND 33 WASHINGTON AVE., DETROIT, MICH., July 27, 1889.

Lawrence Kehoe, Manager the C.P.S. Co.:

DEAR SIR: – Permit me to thank you for the copy of the new Prayer-Book. Its careful compilation by competent clergymen, and the approbation of Apostolic Delegate, should earnestly commend it to all good Catholics. From a mere cursory examination it seems to abundantly supply a need long felt. I congratulate you on the elegant manner in which the work has been brought out. Yours faithfully in Xt, † John Foley, Bishop of Detroit.

238

DEAR MR. KEHOE: – I am in receipt of an elegant copy of your Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity, prepared and published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. Though I saw and partially examined it in course of publication, I must confess that I am more than pleased with it in the form and style in which you have brought it out. It is full and complete in manner, and it will enable the laity to follow understandingly and fruitfully the devotional, soul-inspiring liturgy of the Church in all its offices, rites, and prayers. I most heartily recommend it, and hope that it may soon come into general use among our people.

Yours respectfully, † S.V. Ryan, Bishop of Buffalo.

CHANCERY OFFICE, DIOCESE OF FORT WAYNE, FORT WAYNE, IND., Aug. 1, 1889.

Lawrence Kehoe, Esq.:

DEAR SIR: – The Rt. Rev. Bishop [Joseph Dwenger] directs me to write you that he has received the New Manual of Prayers you sent him a few days since, and expresses his thanks. The bishop is well pleased with the Manual; it is intelligently edited, and, he adds, for an explanation of the Sacraments, ceremonies, and liturgy of the Church, it will prove a welcome and instructive book for the Catholics of the United States; it is a splendid book indeed to place in the hands of non-Catholics as well.

Very respectfully yours, Jno. F. Lang, Secretary.

239

ST. MARY’S CATHEDRAL, CHEYENNE, WYO., July 29, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the beautifully bound and elegant copy of the Manual of Prayers you were good enough to send me. It is indeed gratifying to have at last a book of common prayer for the Catholic laity of the United States, recommended and approved by the American Hierarchy. Certainly, no further recommendation is necessary, and I earnestly trust that as it is the most authoritative prayer-book ever published in this country it may speedily supersede all others now in use, and find its way into the hands of all the faithful.

I am gratefully and sincerely yours, † Maurice F. Burke, Bishop of Cheyenne.

DIOCESE OF SAN ANTONIO, 328 Dwyer Avenue, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, July 30, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe, Manager of the Catholic Publication Society Co., 9 Barclay Street, New York:

DEAR SIR: – I received the complimentary copy of the new Prayer-Book, prepared and published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, which you were kind enough to send to me, and for which accept my thanks. I was very much pleased with the perusal of the book. The instructions and explanations it contains about the Sacraments are very important. It is a very useful prayer-book, and I hope it will soon be in the hands of every English-speaking Catholic, particularly if the price of it can be within the reach of poor people.

I remain sincerely yours, † John C. Neraz, Bishop of San Antonio.

240

EPISCOPAL RESIDENCE, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, BELMONT, GASTON CO., N.C., Aug. 1, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe, New York City:

DEAR SIR: – The Manual of Prayers is not the least of the many good works of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. Sound doctrine is the basis of all solid piety. The Manual instructs whilst it feeds the soul with holy inspirations and teaches how to pray. Nothing that a good prayer-book should contain seems to have been omitted. Your part of the labor will meet the approval of all who appreciate taste and art in book-making. I trust the Manual will soon be in universal use.

Very sincerely yours, † Leo Haid, O.S.B., Abbot, Vic. Apos. of N.C.

MOBILE, ALA., July 31, 1889.

Mr. L. Kehoe, Manager Cath. Pub. Soc. Co., New York:

DEAR SIR: – Accept my thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of the new Prayer-Book. The approval by the Cardinal and the “imprimatur” of the Archbishop of New York are a sufficient guarantee that the book is in strict conformity with the doctrines and discipline of the Church. It is my wish that a copy of the Prayer-Book may find its way into every Catholic home in this diocese.

† J. O’Sullivan, Bishop of Mobile.

ST. MARY’S CATHEDRAL, Eighth Street, COVINGTON, KY., August 2, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe, Cath. Pub. Soc. Co., New York:

DEAR SIR: – The make-up of the Manual of Prayers which you had the kindness to send me is in every way worthy of its contents. The Catholic laity have now a complete and authoritative translation of the Latin text of the sublime prayers used by the Church in the administration of the Sacraments, the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Vesper Service, the devotion of the Eucharistic God, etc. They cannot fail to grow in solid Catholic piety

241

when reading attentively and reverently the beautiful word-forms consecrated by the ecclesiastical usage of centuries, and endorsed for ages by the living authority of God’s church. May the sight of the living source whence non-Catholic communities drew their only meagre stream of devotion make many of their members thirst for the living waters of everlasting life welling up in God’s only Catholic Holy Apostolic Church!

† Camillus Paul Maes, Bishop of Covington.

CONCORDIA, KANS., July 31, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – I beg to thank you for the copy of the new Catholic Prayer-Book which you were so good as to send me. From a brief examination I find it to be mainly a compilation from the Missal, Breviary, and Ritual. It is, therefore, not only a book of devotion, but also a book of instruction which is beyond all question orthodox. In my humble opinion it will prove a great blessing to the laity, as, besides supplying them with only authorized prayers and devotion, it will enable them to have a thorough understanding of the Sacraments and the ceremonies of the Church. The book has a very handsome appearance.

Yours faithfully, † Richard Scannell, Bishop of Concordia.

SAVANNAH, GA., Aug. 3, 1889.

DEAR SIR: – The book is very neat, and you deserve thanks for the material work so elegantly done. Very truly yours,

† Thos. A. Becker, Bishop of Savannah.

VANCOUVER, W.T., Aug. 2, 1889.

Mr. L. Kehoe, New York, N.Y.:

DEAR SIR: – Many thanks for the Prayer-Book, Manual of Prayers. It is well gotten up, elegant, and, as far as I can judge, according to the order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.

Your devoted servant † Ægidius Junger,

242

Bishop of Nesqually.

DIOCESE OF WICHITA, BISHOP’S RESIDENCE, WICHITA, KAN., August 2, 1889.

Mr. L. Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – I gratefully acknowledge the receipt of the Manual of Prayers prepared by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, which you were so kind as to send me. I think this Manual satisfies all demands and will be appreciated by the people.

I remain sincerely yours in Xt, † John J. Hennessy, Bishop of Wichita.

EPISCOPAL RESIDENCE, GRAND RAPIDS, MICH., Aug. 7, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – The Manual of Prayers for the Laity will satisfy the most sanguine expectations. There is in it nothing superfluous and nothing wanting. What is in it, being chosen chiefly from the missal, breviary, and the ritual, is the very best. Its form is attractive and convenient.

Sincerely yours in Xto, † Henry Joseph Richter, Bishop of Grand Rapids.

BISHOP OF WHEELING, ST. JOSEPH’S CATHEDRAL, WHEELING, W. VA., August 9, 1889.

Lawrence Kehoe, Esq., Manager Catholic Publication Society, New York:

DEAR SIR: – I thank you for the copy of the new Prayer-Book which you had the goodness to send me. The typographical work is both substantial and elegant–a proof of the enterprise and progressive spirit of your house.

Yours truly in Xto, † John J. Kain, Bishop of Wheeling.

243

DIOCESE OF GREEN BAY, GREEN BAY, WIS., August 13, 1889.

The Catholic Publication Society Co., 9 Barclay Street, New York:

DEAR SIR: – The copy of the new Prayer-book, Manual of Prayers, you had the kindness of sending to the Rt. Rev. Bishop [Frederick Katzer] has been received. It is just what the last Council has promised, and it will undoubtedly do much good, not only as a prayer-book for different occasions, but especially by leading the people to a better understanding of the ceremonies of the Church, enabling the reader to follow, in his own language, the priest in the performance of his sacred duties. Considering the volume and intrinsic value of the book, the price is very moderate and makes the Manual accessible to every one. The book should not be wanting in any Catholic household.

Respectfully yours, † Norb. Kersten, Vic. Gen. By order of the Rt. Rev. Bishop. per Secretary.

MARQUETTE, August 10, 1889.

To the Catholic Publication Society Co., New York, N.Y.:

The Manual of Prayers, prepared and published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, we consider a very convenient, useful, and instructive prayer-book for the use of all Catholics.

† John Vertin, Bishop of Sault de Ste. Marie and Marquette.

244

DENVER, August 23, 1889.

To Mr. Lawrence Kehoe:

DEAR SIR: – Many thanks for your complimentary copy of the Manual of Prayers, which, as to its material finish, is as exquisitely beautiful as any ever seen, and which, as to the selection and arrangement of its matter, is for practical purposes and information judiciously compiled. In a word, the Manual of Prayers is worthy of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, and highly creditable to the Catholic Publication Society Co.

† N.C. Matz, Bishop of Denver.

ST. MARY’S CATHEDRAL, GALVESTON, TEX., August 23, 1889.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe, Manager Catholic Publication Society Co., New York:

DEAR SIR: – The Manual of Prayers, published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, is certainly a standard prayer-book, and fully up to our expectations. It should be in every Catholic family. It is also a valuable and useful book to place in the hands of those not of our faith who seek solid instruction and information.

Yours respectfully, † N.A. Gallagher, Bishop-administrator.

VICARIATE-APOSTOLIC OF IDAHO, BOISE CITY, IDAHO, October 5, 1889.

Lawrence Kehoe, Esq., Manager Catholic Publication Society Co., New York:

DEAR SIR: – The copy of the new Prayer-Book which you kindly sent to me was duly received in July, but a protracted illness prevented until to-day to examine it and give you my opinion. I most sincerely thank you. I consider it as one of the best prayer-books, if not the best, I ever saw, in every respect.

Believe me, yours sincerely in Christo, † A. J. Glorieux, Bishop, Vicar-Apostolic of Idaho.

245

ACADEMY OF SACRED HEART, 1819 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA.

Mr. Lawrence Kehoe,

DEAR SIR: – Absence from the city has delayed my acknowledgement of your kind presentation of the Manual of Prayers. We have examined the book thoroughly and are delighted with it, especially with the explanation of the Sacraments. So many Catholics are ignorant of these points that it will be a source of information as well as of devotion, and cause the Holy Sacraments to be received with greater reverence and fuller preparation. We will take great pleasure in recommending, even urging, our pupils to procure it. Thanks you for your courtesy,

September 5, 1889. Yours respectfully in C.J., Mme. K.J. Carrell, R.S.H.J.

246

APPENDIX FOUR

Results of Quantitative Analysis

This appendix provides the quantitative results of an analysis comparing the instructions of the Roman Catechism, Baltimore Catechism, and Manual of Prayers. Each section includes a table listing each book’s catechetical content distributed according to a framework based on the

Tridentine catechism described in Chapter Four. The table entries describe Roman Catechism

articles (RC), questions from Baltimore Catechism lessons (BC), and sentence numbers from the

Manual of Prayers introductions as provided in the following pages.1

The Sacraments in General

Table 8. Catechesis on the Sacraments in General RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1, 32 Name/Definition 2-13 136 1 Nature 15-17, 19-21 137 2, 12 Institution 14, 23 138 7-11 Minister 24-26 Effects 27-31 139-143 14-16 145-146 18-26 148-151 Necessity 22 Disposition 144, 147 3-6, 17 Ceremonies 18 a145-163 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 1-32). bLesson 13, On the Sacraments in General, 24-26. cIntroduction to the Sacraments in General, 390-392.

1. The Roman Catechism: Translated and Annotated in accord with Vatican II and Post-conciliar Documents and the New Code of Canon Law, trans. Robert I. Bradley and Eugene Kevane (Boston: St Paul, 1985); United States Catholic Bishops, A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Published by Ecclesiastical Authority (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1885); United States Catholic Bishops, A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity: Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1889) 247

For the sacraments in general, figure 10 summarizes the percentage each book devotes to the objective and subjective content of catechesis. While the chart illustrates little

Figure 10. Focus of Catechesis for the Sacraments in General difference between the books—with most instructional content dedicated to sacraments’ objective nature—the US bishops’ nineteenth-century books, intended for the laity, devote an increasing percentage of their catechesis explaining disposition compared to the Roman Catechism—the Manual’s increase indicating its shift towards sacramental preparation, which it also provides with numerous prayers and meditations.

Manual of Prayers Instruction on the Sacraments in General

1. By Sacrament is meant an outward sign of inward grace, or a sacred and mysterious sign and ceremony ordained by Christ to convey grace to our souls. 2. The Sacraments may be compared to channels which convey water from a fountain- head, and the soul to a vessel which one carries to these channels to be filled. 3. The fountain, abounding with water, courses through the channels and fills every vessel which is applied thereto, as far as it can hold; the larger the vessel, the greater the quantity of water it will contain. 4. So the larger the capacity of the soul (which capacity depends upon the soul's dispositions), the greater the portion of grace which it receives through the heavenly channels of the Sacraments. 5. But the conditions required in the receiver are by no means productive of the efficacy of the Sacraments.

248

6. Take the example of light and heat: fire is not lacking in burning power because it cannot act on incombustible materials; nor are the windows of a room the cause of light, though necessary to give it admission. 7. The Church has never instituted, and could not institute, any Sacrament - this is a power reserved to God Himself. 8. He alone is the Fountain of Grace: He alone can appoint the channels by which that grace is conveyed to our souls. 9. Since, therefore, as a fact, He has appointed those channels—and no others—which we call Sacraments, by those only can we ordinarily obtain that special grace. 10. Hence it follows that no power on earth can change what was ordained by Jesus Christ in the outward forms of the Sacraments, without destroying them entirely; for if any change is made in what He ordained, it is no longer the same form to which grace is annexed, and consequently ceases to be a Sacrament. 11. The Passion of Christ is the rich and exhaustless source from which the grace of every Sacrament is derived; for each grace was purchased for us at the price of our Divine Redeemer's Blood. 12. There are seven Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. 13. Special Instructions on each Sacrament will be found in their proper places. 14. Of these Sacraments, some give sanctifying grace, and others increase it in our souls. 15. Those that give sanctifying grace are Baptism and Penance; they are called Sacraments of the Dead, because they take away sin, which is the death of the soul, and give grace, which is its life. 16. Those that increase sanctifying grace in the soul are Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony; these are called Sacraments of the Living, because those who receive them worthily are already living the life of grace. 17. They should be received, therefore, in a state of grace; any one receiving the Sacraments of the Living in mortal sin incurs the additional guilt of Sacrilege. 18. The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders imprint what is called a character upon the soul—a spiritual mark which remains for ever—and hence they can be received but once. 19. Besides the sanctifying grace common to all the Sacraments, God has annexed to each a particular Sacramental grace, which is a special help to enable us to perform the duties and attain the end for which each Sacrament was instituted—e.g., 20. 1. Shortly after we come into the world we are made the children of God by Baptism. 21. 2. As we grow up we are fortified for the combats against our spiritual enemies which we have to undergo, and are made soldiers of Christ, by Confirmation.

249

22. 3. The Holy Eucharist is the daily bread which feeds and nourishes our souls to everlasting life. 23. 4. If unhappily we fall in the spiritual conflict, Penance is the remedy which restores life to the soul. 24. 5. In Matrimony special graces are provided to sanctify and assuage the cares of the married state. 25. 6. Holy Orders keeps up the succession of pastors in the Church, and enables them to faithfully discharge their sacred functions. 26. 7. When the Christian soul is on the verge of Eternity, it is strengthened and comforted by the refreshing graces of Extreme Unction, so that the Christian warrior may not be vanquished at the last.

Baptism

Figure 11 illustrates a stark contrast between the Manual and the Roman and Baltimore catechisms, the former instructing exclusively on Baptism’s ceremonies. Its introduction, derived from The Golden Manual, surprisingly omits catechesis on its required dispositions.

Table 9. Catechesis on Baptism RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1-2, 22, 41, 77 Name/Definition 3-5 152 Nature 6-16, 17-19 156-161 Institution 20-21 Minister 23-25 155 Effects 42-58 153 Necessity 31-34, 35-37154 Disposition-Sponsors 26-30 164-165 Disposition 38-40 Ceremonies 59-75, 76 162-163 1-44 a164-197 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 1-77). bLesson 14, On Baptism, 26-28. c Explanation of the Ceremonies, 393-396.

250

Figure 11. Focus of Catechesis for Baptism

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Baptism

Explanation of the Ceremonies

1. The ceremonies used by the Church in the administration of Baptism are very ancient. 2. St. Basil mentions many of them, which, he says, are of Apostolical tradition; as the consecration of the water, and of the oil used in the anointings, the renunciation of Satan and his works, and the profession of faith. 3. St. Augustine mentions the sign of the Cross, the imposition of hands, and the custom of giving salt to the catechumens. 4. St. Ambrose speaks of the ceremony of touching the ears and nostrils with spittle, with the words, Be opened. 5. These ceremonies have a twofold signification. 6. They are outward signs of that which the Holy Spirit operates inwardly in the souls of those that receive the Sacrament; and they also admonish them of that which they ought to do, and represent to them the obligations they contract. 7. The Priest is vested in a white , as denoting innocence, and successively uses two stoles, one violet, the other white. 8. The violet color signifies the unhappy state to which sin has reduced mankind. 9. After the exorcisms the Priest puts on the white , as the symbol of the innocence conferred by the Sacrament.

251

10. Addressing himself to the godfather and godmother, he asks the name by which the child is to be called. 11. A name is given, says St. Charles Borromeo, to show that the person is dedicated to the service of Jesus Christ. 12. This name, the Council of Trent teaches, should be that of some Saint, in order that by bearing the same name the person may be excited to imitate his virtues and sanctity; and that, while endeavoring to imitate him, he may invoke him and pray to him, in the confident hope that he will be his patron and advocate, for the safety of his body and the salvation of his soul. 13. The wretched state to which sin has reduced the human race is still further intimated by the Priest's breathing three times on the person to be baptized, which is done to drive away the devil, as by the Holy Ghost, who is the Spirit or breath of God. 14. It also expresses the contempt which Christians have of him, and the ease with which he may be put to flight, like a straw with a puff of wind. 15. After having put to flight the tyrant who holds in captivity every one that cometh into the world, the Priest imprints on the person to be baptized the seal of a very different Master. 16. He signs him with the sign of the Cross on the forehead and on the breast, that Christ, who was crucified for our sins, may take possession of him—on the forehead, to signify that a Christian must never be ashamed to make open profession of the faith of his crucified Saviour; and on the breast, to signify that the love of Jesus Christ, and a readiness to obey all His divine commandments and to share in His sufferings, ought constantly to reside in his heart. 17. The Priest, as God's representative, then lays his hand on the head of the person to be baptized, to denote possession in the name of the Almighty. 18. He then blesses the salt, to purify it from the malignant influences of the evil spirit; and puts a few grains of this salt, thus blessed, into the mouth of the person to be baptized. 19. The salt is the symbol of wisdom, as when St. Paul says (Col. iv. 6): Let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt. 20. Salt is also a preservative against corruption. 21. This ceremony, then, signifies that the person baptized must make known to the world the sweet savor of the law of God, by the good example of a virtuous and holy conversation; and show by all his works that it is the doctrine of Christ that preserves the soul from corruption, and establishes a firm hope of the resurrection of the body. 22. Having thus communicated to the person to be baptized the wisdom of Christ and the relish for divine things, the Priest peremptorily commands the wicked spirit to depart, and never attempt to deprive him of this precious gift, in the solemn words of the ancient

252

exorcism; then making the sign of the Cross, he says: And this sign of the holy Cross which we place upon his forehead. do thou, accursed devil, never dare to violate. 23. After this the Priest lays the end of his stole, the symbol of his authority, upon the person to be baptized, and introduces him into the church. 24. Being come therein, the Priest, jointly with the person to be baptized, or, if it be an infant, with the godfather and godmother, recites aloud the Lord's Prayer and the Apostles' Creed. 25. He then again exorcises the unclean spirit, and commands him to depart in the name and by the power of the most blessed Trinity. 26. The next is a ceremony deeply significative. 27. We read in the Gospel (Mark vii. 32-35) that our Lord cured one that was deaf and dumb touching his tongue and his ears with spittle, saying: Ephpheta—“Be opened." Man, in his natural state, is spiritually both deaf and dumb. 28. Therefore the Church, the Spouse of Jesus Christ and the depository of His power, follows His example; and the Priest of the Church, taking spittle from his mouth, touches therewith the ears and the nostrils of the person to be baptized, repeating the same miraculous word, as if to signify the necessity of having the senses of the soul open to the truth and grace of God. 29. Then follows the solemn renunciation of Satan and of his works and pomps. 30. After which the Priest anoints the person to be baptized on the breast and between the shoulders, making the sign of the Cross. 31. This outward unction represents the inward anointing of the soul by , which, like a sacred oil, penetrates our hearts, heals the wounds of our souls, and fortifies them against our passions and concupiscences. 32. The anointing of the breast signifies the necessity of fortifying the heart with heavenly courage, that we may act manfully and do our duty in all things. 33. The anointing between the shoulders signifies the necessity of the like grace, in order to bear and support all the adversities and crosses of this mortal life. 34. The oil is a symbol also of the sweetness of the yoke of Christ. 35. The moment having arrived at which another human being is to become the child of God and a member of the mystical , the Priest, to denote that sorrow is about to be changed into joy, changes his stole, and instead of the violet puts on a white one. 36. Then follows the Profession of Faith, after which the Sacrament of regeneration is thus administered: While the godfather and godmother both hold or touch their godchild, the Priest pours the baptismal water on the child's head three times, in the form of a Cross, repeating the sacramental words in such manner that the three pourings of the water concur with the pronouncing of the three names of the Divine Persons.

253

37. The water is poured three times, while the words are pronounced but once, to show that the Three Persons unite in the regeneration of man in holy Baptism. 38. The godparents hold or touch their godchild, to signify that they answer for him, or that they engage to put him in mind of his vow and promise. 39. Then the Priest anoints the person baptized on the crown of the head, in the form of a Cross, with holy chrism, compounded of oil and balsam. 40. This ceremony is of Apostolical tradition, and signifies: 1st. That the person baptized is solemnly consecrated to the service of God, and made a living temple of the Holy Ghost. 41. 2d. That by Baptism he is made partaker with Christ, the great Anointed of God, and has a share in His unction and grace. 42. 3d. That he is anointed to be king, priest, and prophet; and therefore that, as king, he must have dominion over his passions; as priest, he must offer himself unceasingly to God as a living sacrifice for an odor of sweetness; as prophet, he must declare by his life the rewards of the world to come. 43. After the anointing, the Priest puts upon the head of the baptized a white linen cloth, now used instead of the white garment with which the new Christian used anciently to be clothed in Baptism, to signify the purity and innocence which we receive in Baptism, and which we must take care to preserve till death. 44. Lastly, the Priest puts a lighted candle into the hand of the person baptized, or of the godfather; which ceremony is derived from the parable of the virgins (Matt, xxv.), who taking their lamps went forth to meet the bridegroom; and is intended to remind the person baptized that, being now a child of light, he must walk as a child of light, and keep the lamp of faith ever burning with the oil of charity and good works, for the glory of God and the edification of his neighbor; so that whenever the Lord shall come he may be found prepared, and may go in with Him into the eternal life of His heavenly kingdom.

254

Confirmation

Table 10. Catechesis on Confirmation RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1 Name/Definition 2 166 1-2 Nature 3-5, 7-12 169-170 12-15 Institution 6 3 Minister 13-15 167 Effects 20-23a 176-186 4-5a Necessity 16-17 175 Disposition 18-190 173-174 5b-11 Ceremonies 23b-26 168, 171-172 16-19 a198-209 (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 1-26). bLessons 15-16, On Confirmation, 28-29; On the Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Ghost, 30-31. cInstructions, 418-420; The Ceremonies Explained, 420-421.

Figure 12 illustrates the increased amount of catechesis the Manual devotes to disposition and ceremonies in its introduction to Confirmation compared to the Roman and Baltimore catechisms.

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Confirmation

Instructions

1. Confirmation is a Sacrament by which the faithful, who have already been made children of God by their Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by the prayer and the imposition of the hands of the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, in order to

their being made Figure 12. Focus of Catechesis for Confirmation

255

strong and perfect Christians and valiant soldiers of Jesus Christ. 2. It is called Confirmation from its effect, which is to confirm or strengthen those that receive it in the profession of the true faith; to give them such courage and resolution as to be willing rather to die than to turn from it; and to arm them in general against all their spiritual enemies. 3. 2. This Sacrament was designed and instituted by our Lord for all Christians, and consequently is a divine . 4. 3. The principal effects of this Sacrament are a fortifying grace in order to strengthen the soul against all the visible and invisible enemies of the faith; and a certain dedication and consecration of the soul by the Holy Ghost, the mark of which dedication and consecration is left in the soul as a character, which can never be effaced. 5. 4. Hence this Sacrament can be received but once, and it would be a sacrilege to attempt to receive it a second time; for which reason also the faithful are bound to take extreme care to come to this Sacrament duly disposed, lest, if they should be so unhappy as to receive it in mortal sin, they should receive their own condemnation, and run the risk of being deprived for ever of its grace. 6. 5. Now, the dispositions which the Christian must bring with him to receive worthily the Sacrament of Confirmation are, a purity of conscience, at least from all mortal sin; for which reason he ought to go to confession before he is confirmed, for the Holy Ghost will not come to a soul in which Satan reigns by mortal sin; secondly, a sincere desire of giving himself up to the Holy Ghost, to follow the influence of His divine grace, to be His temple for ever, and, by His assistance, to fulfil all the obligations of a Soldier of Christ. 7. 6. Hence a Christian ought to prepare himself for this Sacrament by fervent prayer, as we find the Apostles prepared themselves for the receiving of the Holy Ghost. 8. All these were persevering with one mind in prayer, says St. Luke (speaking of the ten days that passed between the Ascension of our Lord and Pentecost). 9. How happy shall they be, who like them prepare themselves for the Holy Ghost by these spiritual exercises! 10. 7. The obligations which accompany the character of Confirmation, and which a Christian takes upon himself when he receives this Sacrament, are, to bear a loyal and perpetual allegiance to the great King in whose service he enlists himself as a soldier; to be true to His standard, the Cross of Christ, the mark of which he receives on his forehead; to fight His battles against His enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil; to be faithful unto death; and rather to die than desert from the service, or go over to the enemy by wilful sin—in fine, to live up to the glorious character of a Soldier of Christ, and to maintain that interior purity and sanctity which becomes the Temple of the Holy Ghost, by a life of prayer and a life of love.

256

11. Where the character of our Confirmation, when we shall bring it before the judgment- seat of Christ, shall be found to have been accompanied with such a life as this, it will shine most gloriously in our souls for all eternity; but if, instead of living up to it, we should be found to have been deserters and rebels, and to have violated this sacred character by a life of sin, it will certainly in judgment against us, it will condemn us at the bar of divine justice, it will cast us deeper into the bottomless pit, and be a mark of eternal ignominy and reproach to our souls amongst the damned.

The Ceremonies Explained

12. The Chrism used in Confirmation is a sacred unguent, composed of oil of olives and balsam, solemnly blessed by the Bishop on Maundy-Thursday. 13. The outward anointing of the forehead with chrism represents the inward anointing of the soul, in this Sacrament, with the Holy Ghost. 14. The oil, whose properties are to strengthen and invigorate the limbs, to assuage pain, etc., represents the like spiritual effects of the grace of the Sacrament in the soul, penetrating and diffusing itself throughout all her powers; oil also, being a smooth and mild substance, represents that spirit of meekness and patience under the cross which is one principal effect of Confirmation. 15. The balsam fitly represents the fortifying grace received in Confirmation, by which our souls are preserved from corruption after our sins have been destroyed by the Sacrament of Baptism; also, being of a sweet smell, it represents the good odor or sweet savor of Christian virtues and an innocent life, with which we are to edify our neighbors after having received this Sacrament. 16. The anointing of the forehead is made in the form of a Cross, because the virtue of this Sacrament, as all other graces, comes through the merits of the sacrifice of the death of Jesus Christ; and to show that, being now confirmed in His service and enlisted as His soldiers, we should never be ashamed of our Master, but boldly profess ourselves disciples of a crucified Saviour and members of His Church, in spite of all the world may do against us, either by ridicule or persecution. 17. The Bishop gives the person confirmed a gentle stroke on the cheek, to teach him that, being now a soldier of Jesus Christ, he must fight manfully against all his enemies; suffer patiently all kinds of affronts and injuries for his faith; and bear with meekness all crosses and trials, for the sake and for the glory of his Lord and Master. 18. In giving him this gentle stroke, the Bishop says, Peace be with thee, to signify that the true peace of God, which, as St. Paul says (Philip, iv. 7), surpasseth all understanding, is chiefly to be found in suffering patiently for Christ's sake; and also to encourage him to do so by the hope of reward, according to our Lord's promise (Matt. xi. 29): Learn of Me, because I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls. 19. Persons usually take a new name at Confirmation, which ought to be the name of some Saint, whom they choose for their particular Patron.

257

Eucharist

Table 11. Catechesis on Eucharist RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1, 25, 47 65-66, 69 Name/Definition 3-6 238 21c, 57-58 Nature (Sacrament) 7-24, 26-46 242-248 63-66 Nature (Sacrifice) 70-80 262-268 1-10, 12-23 Institution 2 239-241 11, 59-61 Minister 67-68 249-250 62 Effects 48-54 251-253 67-73 Necessity 59-61 259-260 74-82 Disposition (Communion) 55-58 254-258 83-122 62-64 261 Disposition (Mass) 269-270 50-56 Ceremonies 81 24-49 a210-254 (pt. 2, ch. 4, art. 1-81). bLessons 22-24, On the Holy Eucharist, 40-43; On the Ends For Which the Holy Eucharist Was Instituted, 43-45; On the Sacrifice of the Mass, 45-47. cWhat the Mass Is, for What End It Is to Be Offered, 84-86; Of the Ceremony of Mass, 86-88; Of the Manner of Hearing Mass, 89; Instructions for Holy Communion, 302-305; [No Title], 325.

Figure 13 illustrates the significant percentage of the Manual’s catechesis devoted to the dispositions and ceremonies related to the Eucharist compared to the Roman and Baltimore catechisms. While the latter books describe proper dispositions, the Manual provides extensive spiritual exercises and prayers for

Communion and includes additional dispositions for the Figure 13. Focus of Catechesis for Eucharist

258

Mass. It devotes a quarter of its catechesis to the Mass’s ceremonies, especially those most accessible to the laity.

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Eucharist

What the Mass Is, and for What End It Is to Be Offered

1. From the beginning of the world the servants of God were always accustomed to offer Sacrifice to Him, by way of acknowledging His sovereignty and paying their homage to Him; and in all ancient religions, true or false, this worship of Sacrifice was always regarded as a most solemn act of religion, due to the Deity worshipped. 2. In the law of nature, and in the law of Moses, there was a great variety of : some bloody, in which the victim was slain; others unbloody. 3. Some were called Holocausts, or whole burnt-offerings, in which the whole host or victim was consumed in fire upon God's altar, for His honor and glory; others were called Sin-offerings, which were offered for sins; others were offerings of Thanksgivings; others were pacific or Peace-offerings, which were offered for obtaining favors of God—the word "peace" in the Scripture style signifying all manner of good and prosperity. 4. All these Sacrifices of the law of nature, and of the law of Moses, were of themselves but weak and needy elements (Gal. iv. 9), and only figures of a Sacrifice to come, viz., that of Jesus Christ; in consideration of which Sacrifice only, and of the faith of the offerers, by which they believed in the Redeemer to come, those ancient Sacrifices were then accepted by the Divine Majesty, when they were accompanied with the inward sacrifice of the heart; but not for any intrinsic worth or dignity of the things offered, for no other blood but the could wash away sins. 5. Hence, St. Paul says (Heb. x. 5), quoting from the 39th Psalm: Sacrifice and Thou wouldst not have: but Thou hast fitted to Me a Body. 6. This gives us to understand that, by reason of the insufficiency of the Sacrifices of the old law, Christ Himself would come to be our Sacrifice, and would offer up His own Body and Blood for us. 7. Accordingly, our Saviour Jesus Christ, at the time appointed by His Father, having taken flesh for us, was pleased to offer Himself a Sacrifice for us, dying upon the Cross for the sins of the whole world. 8. By this one offering we were completely redeemed, inasmuch as our ransom was paid, and all mercy, grace, and salvation were purchased for us. 9. Neither can there now be any need of His dying any more, or purchasing any other graces for us than those for which He has already paid the price of His Blood.

259

10. Nevertheless, for the daily application of this one eternal Redemption to our souls, and that the mercy, grace, and salvation which He has purchased for us may be actually communicated to us. 11. He not only continually appears in our behalf in the Sanctuary of Heaven, there representing and offering to His Father His Passion and Death for us, but He has also instituted the Blessed Eucharist, the night before His Passion, in which He bequeathed us His Body and Blood, under the sacramental , not only to be received by us as a Sacrament, for the food and nourishment of our souls, but also (mystically delivered) to be offered and presented by His ministers to His Father as a Sacrifice: not by way of a new death, but by way of a standing Memorial of His death; a daily celebrating and representing of His death to God, and an applying to our souls of the fruits thereof. 12. This Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, daily offered under the forms of bread and wine, in remembrance of His Passion, is what we call the Mass. 13. This is the solemn Liturgy of the Catholic Church. 14. This is that pure Offering which is made to God in every place among the Gentiles, according to the prophecy of Malachi (i. 10, 11). 15. By this, Christ is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech (Psalm 109), whose Sacrifice was bread and wine (Gen. xv.). 16. This Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in substance with that which Christ offered for us upon the Cross; because both the Victim offered, and the Priest or principal Offerer, is the same Jesus Christ. 17. The difference is only in the manner of the offering; because upon the Cross our Saviour offered Himself in such a manner as really to shed His Blood and die for us; whereas now He does not really shed His Blood, or die. 18. And therefore this is called an unbloody Sacrifice; and that of the Cross a bloody Sacrifice. 19. By virtue of this essential sameness, the Sacrifice of the Mass completely answers all the different ends of Sacrifice, and that in a way infinitely more effective than any of the ancient Sacrifices. 20. Christ is here both Priest and Victim, representing in person and offering up His Passion and Death to His Father. 21. This Sacrifice of the Mass is offered up to God, in the Catholic Church, first as a daily remembrance of the Passion of Christ: This do for the of Me (i Cor. xi. 24); secondly, as a most solemn worship of the Divine Majesty; thirdly, as a most acceptable thanksgiving to God, from whence it has the name of Eucharist; fourthly, as a most powerful means to move God to show mercy to us in the forgiveness of our sins, for which reason we call it propitiatory; and, lastly, as a most effectual way to obtain of God all that we need, coming to Him, as we here do, with Christ and through Christ.

260

22. For these ends both Priest and people ought to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass—the Priest, as Christ's minister and in His person; and the people, by the hands of the Priest; and both the one and the other by the hands of the Great High-Priest Jesus Christ. 23. And with this offering of Christ, both the one and the other should make a total offering of themselves also by His hands and in union with Him.

Of the Ceremony of Mass

24. Although the homage which man owes to his Creator so essentially consists in the interior dispositions of the soul that without these all outward worship is unprofitable and vain, yet the constitution of our nature is such as to require external signs and ceremonies which may operate through the medium of the bodily senses upon our souls, and elevate them to God. 25. To this end are directed all the Ceremonies of the Church, and it is the Christian's duty to learn how to use them accordingly. 26. Hence—1. The custom of placing a vessel containing blessed or at the of the Church has been handed down to us from the Apostolic age. 27. Into this vessel the faithful dip the fingers of the right hand, and make upon themselves the Sign of the Cross, repeating at the same time the invocation of the Ever- blessed Trinity. 28. As water denotes purity and innocence, by using it on entering a place of worship we are admonished with what purity of heart and mind we should appear in the presence of our Maker. 29. 2. The Sign of the Cross, which we make upon ourselves in taking holy water, as well as on many other occasions, is a sign or ceremony in which, with St. Paul (Gal. vi. 14), we should place our greatest happiness and glory, as being a striking memorial of the sufferings and death of our Redeemer—that mystery whence are derived all our hopes for mercy, grace, and salvation. 30. By the words that accompany this ceremony we are no less forcibly reminded that God whom we serve, although One in nature, exists in Three Persons really distinct from each other. 31. 3. The first object that arrests the Christian's notice on entering a Church is the Altar, with its Tabernacle and Crucifix. 32. The Altar is the place of Sacrifice—another Calvary, as it were—whereon is celebrated, as Christ ordained, the memorial of His Passion and Death by the pure and unbloody Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. 33. Upon the Altar we always see a Crucifix, or image of our Saviour upon the Cross; that as the Mass is said in remembrance of Christ's Passion and Death, both Priest and people may have before their eyes during this Sacrifice the image which puts them in mind of those Mysteries.

261

34. The Tabernacle contains the Blessed Sacrament. 35. It is to Jesus Christ, therefore, truly present within the Tabernacle, that we bend the knee in homage and adoration when we enter or depart from the Church. 36. 4. As the Mass represents the Passion of Christ, and the Priest officiates in His person, so the Vestments in which he officiates represent those in which Christ was ignominiously clothed at the time of His Passion. 37. Thus, the represents the cloth with which the Jews muffled our Saviour's Face when at every blow they bade Him prophesy who it was that struck Him. 38. The represents the white garment with which He was vested by Herod. 39. The , Maniple, and Stole represent the cords and bands with which He was bound in the different stages of His Passion. 40. The , or outward , represents the garment with which He was clothed as a mock King; upon this is embroidered a Cross, to represent that which Christ bore upon His sacred shoulders. 41. Lastly, the Priest's , which is worn in all Catholic countries, is to represent the crown of thorns which our Saviour wore. 42. Moreover, as in the old law the Priests who were wont to officiate in the sacred functions had, by the appointment of God, Vestments assigned for that purpose—as well for the greater decency and solemnity of the Divine worship as to signify the virtues which God required of His ministers—so it was proper that in the Church of the New Testament Christ's ministers should in their sacred functions be distinguished in like manner from the laity by their sacred Vestments; which might also represent the virtues which God requires in them. 43. Thus, the Amice represents divine Hope, which St. Paul calls the helmet of salvation; the Alb, Innocence of life; the Girdle, Purity and Chastity; the Maniple, Patience in enduring the labors of this mortal life; the Stole, the sweet Yoke of Christ, to be borne in this life in order to attain a happy immortality; the Chasuble, which covers all the rest, the virtue of Charity, which, as St. Peter tells us, covereth a multitude of sins. 44. In these Vestments the Church uses five colors, viz., White, on the Feasts of our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, of the Angels, and of the Saints who were not , and on the Sundays in ; Red, on the Feasts of Pentecost, of the Finding and Exaltation of the Cross, and of the Apostles and Martyrs; Violet, in the penitential seasons of Advent and Lent, and upon Vigils and Amber-days; Green, on most other Sundays and ordinary days throughout the year; and Black, on Good Friday, and in Masses for the Dead. 45. 5. There are always Lighted Candles upon the Altar during Mass, as well to honor the victory and triumph of our great King by these lights, which are tokens of our joy and of His Glory, as to denote the light of Faith, without which it is impossible to please Him. 46. 6. A small Bell is occasionally rung.

262

47. This is done to give notice of certain more solemn parts of the Sacrifice; to recall the wandering mind from distraction; and to excite all to greater fervor and devotion. 48. 7. Incense is used at . 49. It is symbolical of Prayer, according to the saving of the Psalmist: Let my prayer, O Lord, be directed as incense in Thy sight (Ps. cxl. 2).

On the Manner of Hearing Mass

50. There are various methods of profitably hearing Mass. 51. One method is, to follow the Priest in the Ordinary of the Mass as contained in the Missal; joining with him, as far as the laity may, in the very words of the service, and uniting our intention with him in what he does as Priest for the people. 52. To enable all persons, even those who do not understand Latin, to follow the service, translations of the Ordinary and have been made into almost all languages, and circulated by authority. 53. Another method is to accompany the Priest through the different parts of the service with appropriate devotions, similar to those he is using and directed to the same general ends, uniting our intention with his, but not using or not confining ourselves to the words of the Ordinary. 54. A third method is to apply the service to the purpose of meditation on the Life or Passion of our Lord, or on any other appropriate subject. 55. Whatever be the method followed, our first care should be to recollect ourselves, by calling home our wandering thoughts, and taking them off from all other concerns. 56. We should humble ourselves profoundly in the presence of God, in whose Temple we are; and represent to ourselves, by a lively Faith, the dread majesty of God, and humbly beg His mercy and grace, that we may participate in this Holy Sacrifice in a worthy and becoming manner.

Instructions for Holy Communion

57. The Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, under the appearances of bread and wine. 58. The bread which I will give, says Jesus Christ, is My Flesh, for the life of the world (John vi. 52). 59. And at His Last Supper Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to His disciples, and said: Take and eat: This is My Body. 60. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 61. For this is My Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many, unto remission of sins (Matt. xxvi. 26-28).

263

62. Our Blessed Redeemer, having thus instituted this adorable Sacrament, ordained His Apostles Priests of the new law, and gave to them and their lawful successors power and authority to do what He had done—that is, to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood. 63. This change (which the Church calls ) is effected by these divine words of our Redeemer, This is My Body, This is My Blood, which the Priest at the Consecration in the Mass pronounces in the name and person of Jesus Christ. 64. It is God Himself who works this wonderful change by the ministry of His Priest. 65. When, therefore, the words of Consecration are pronounced, we believe that the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the Blood, of our Blessed Lord. 66. And as Jesus Christ is now immortal, and cannot be divided, He is truly present, whole and entire, both God and Man, under the appearance of bread and under the appearance of wine. 67. The method by which our Salvation is graciously accomplished is by our personal union with our Incarnate Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 68. He came to be the new Head of the human race, the second Adam. 69. He is the Vine of which we are the branches, the Head of the Body of which we are the members. 70. We who have been baptized have been incorporated into Christ. 71. A new life has been imparted to us. 72. But the spiritual, supernatural life which He imparts needs, like our natural, physical life, to be fed and nourished; otherwise it will languish and be in danger of perishing. 73. And our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to us that as He is the Source of this our true life, so He is Himself its Food and Sustenance. 74. He tells us that we must definitely and personally appropriate Him. 75. He that eateth me, He says, the same also shall live by Me (John vi. 58). 76. He explains that we must be partakers of His Sacred Humanity, of His Flesh, and of His glorious Life, once laid down for our sins, but now risen, and ascended, and ever presented as an atoning and acceptable Sacrifice—the Blood of the New Testament. 77. Unless ye eat, He says, the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you. 78. He who eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath everlasting life; and I will raise him upon the last day (John vi. 54, 55). 79. The means whereby this most momentous feeding upon Christ is accomplished is the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

264

80. This is the means appointed by our Blessed Lord Himself, and it is clear, therefore, that this Holy Sacrament must on no account be neglected where it may be had. 81. If we wilfully or carelessly refuse the means, we cannot expect to receive the grace. 82. Let a man prove himself, says St. Paul (I Cor. xi. 28), and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of the Cup. 83. This proving one's self is the first and most necessary preparation for the Holy Communion, and consists in looking diligently into the state of one's soul, in order to discover what unworthy dispositions or sins may lie there concealed, and to apply a proper remedy to them by sincere repentance and Confession: lest otherwise, approaching the Holy of Holies with a soul defiled with the guilt of mortal sin, we become guilty of the Body and of the Blood of Christ, and receive judgment to ourselves, not discerning the Body of the Lord (I Cor. xi. 27, 29). 84. For this reason we go to confession before Communion, in order to clear our souls from the defilement of sin. 85. The person who is to receive the Blessed Sacrament must be also fasting from the previous midnight, by the command of the Church and by a most ancient and Apostolical tradition ordaining that, in reference to so great a Sacrament, nothing should enter into the body of a Christian before the Body of Christ. 86. The case of danger of approaching death is excepted, when the Blessed Sacrament is received by way of Viaticum. 87. Besides this preparation of Confession and Fasting, the person who proposes to go to Communion must endeavor to attain the best possible devotion, in order to dispose his soul for more suitably receiving so great a Guest. 88. To this end he is recommended: 1. To think well on the great work he has in hand; to consider attentively Who it is whom he is going to receive, and how far he is from deserving such a favor; and to implore, with fervor and humility, God's grace and mercy. 89. And this should be the subject of his meditations and prayers for some time beforehand, and more particularly the night before his Communion and the morning he receives. 90. 2. To propose to himself a Pure Intention, viz., the honor of God and the sanctification of his own soul; and in particular that by worthily receiving Christ in this heavenly Sacrament he may come to a happy union with Him, according to His words in the Gospel of St. John, He who eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. 91. 3. To meditate on the Sufferings and Death of his Redeemer; this Sacrament being instituted to this end, that we should show the death of the Lord until He come (I Cor. xi. 26). 92. 4. To prepare himself by acts of virtue, more especially of Faith, Hope. Love, and Humility; that so he may approach to his Lord with a firm belief of His Real Presence in

265

this Sacrament, and of that great Sacrifice which He heretofore offered upon the Cross for our Redemption, of which He here makes us partakers; with an ardent affection of love to Him who has loved us so much, and who, out of pure love, gives Himself to us; and with a great sentiment of his own unworthiness and sins, joined with a firm confidence in the mercies of his Redeemer. 93. Here follow the forms of Preparation for, and Thanksgiving after, the Holy Communion, which are set forth in the Roman Missal. 94. They should be used as aids to the exercise of our thoughts and the kindling of our affections, and not as substitutes for our own efforts. 95. They point out the proper line of thought and subjects for reflection, and, if used carefully and meditatively, will be found of great assistance. 96. But no forms, however perfect in themselves, would be good for us without much care and effort on our own parts. 97. These forms are enlarged and extended somewhat, as a variety is useful for different minds, and also for the same mind at different times. [No Title]

98. [For those who wish to pray in their own words. 99. Reflect on the events of the period since your last Communion. Consider; What you have specially to be thankful for—The mercies you have enjoyed. 100. (In home life; the love of friends; success in business, and the like; spiritual blessings, etc.) 101. Any troubles which have been averted. 102. (Dangers to which you have been exposed; causes of anxiety which have been removed, etc.) 103. Any sorrows or troubles which have fallen upon you. 104. (Trace God's hand in them, trusting that He has some merciful design in them, so that you can thank Him for them.) 105. What you have specially to pray for— 106. For the Church of Christ. 107. (The Pope, the whole Hierarchy, your own Bishop, the Clergy with whom you are specially concerned, Missions, etc.) 108. For your country. 109. (The President and his Counsellors, Congress, the Governor, etc.; national dangers to be averted, etc.) 110. For your relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

266

111. (Any who are sick or in sorrow; any for whom you desire God's guidance in religious or worldly affairs. 112. Think whether any one has any special claim upon you. 113. Have you injured any one? 114. If so, have you made all the reparation in your power? 115. Has any one injured you, having thus a special need for your prayers? 116. The Souls in have you to pray especially for some of these?) 117. For yourself. 118. (Sins to be forgiven. 119. What are your chief temptations just now? 120. What sins and faults do you most need aid against? 121. What Christian virtues are you chiefly deficient in? 122. Are there any business affairs, or undertakings of any kind, or expected events, upon which you desire to ask God's blessing? etc.]

267

Penance

Table 12. Catechesis on Penance RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1, 58-61, 79 Name/Definition 2-3 187 1-2 Nature 7-24, 26-46188 Nature (Contrition) 23-28 195-207 Nature (Confession) 37-38 208 Nature (Satisfaction) 62-70 218-220 231-236 Institution 39-40 3-5 Minister 16, 41, 54-57 189-190 6 Effects 18-19, 71-72 9-15 Necessity 20, 36 7-8 43-45, 53 Disposition (Contrition) 29-35 191-194 16-70 Disposition (Confession) 46-52 209-217 75-82 Disposition (Satisfaction) 73-78 221-223, 237 87-94 Ceremonies 15, 17, 42 224-230 71-74 83-86 a255-296 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 1-79). bLessons 17-21, On the Sacrament of Penance, 35-36; On Contrition, 37-39; On Confession, 39-41; On the Manner of Making a Good Confession, 42-43; On Indulgences, 43-44. cOn the Sacrament of Penance, 271-272; Considerations to Excite Confession, 277- 278; Examination of Conscience, 278-282; Directions for Confession, 285-286; After Confession, 288.

Figure 14 illustrates the increased catechesis devoted to the cultivating dispositions for

Penance in the Manual compared to the Roman and

Baltimore because of its inclusion of an Examination of Figure 14. Focus of Catechesis for Penance

268

Conscience and other spiritual exercises

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Penance

On the Sacrament of Penance

1. Penance is a Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ, in which, by the ministry of the Priest, actual sins are forgiven, and the conscience is released from the bonds by which it may be bound. 2. In this Sacrament, also, the eternal punishment due to sin is remitted, and a part or the whole of the temporal punishment, according to the disposition of the penitent. 3. This holy and salutary institution is grounded on the words of Jesus Christ: Truly I say to you, whatever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven (Matt, xviii. 18), and, As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 4. When He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. 5. Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained (John xx. 21, etc.) 6. In these words Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles, and to their lawful successors, power and authority to absolve from all sin those who sincerely repent of their offences. 7. Hence we see the great necessity of this Sacrament; and the Council of Trent has decreed that it is not less necessary for salvation to those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism, than Baptism to those who have never been baptized. 8. And although Penance may, at first sight, and in itself, seem to be a bitter and painful thing, yet, viewed in its fruits and consequences, it is full of consolation; and every Christian, as soon as he is conscious that he has fallen into a mortal sin, ought at once to have recourse to this fount of . 9. The evil consequences of delay are manifold. 10. 1. In a state of mortal sin, every other mortal sin committed renders our hearts still more hardened. 11. 2. The commission of one mortal sin makes a second easier, and this leads to a third, and so on. 12. 3. In a state of mortal sin we lose the value of all the good works that we may do. 13. They avail nothing for everlasting life. Neither alms, nor prayers, nor fasts, nor even martyrdom itself, can profit us if we have not repented of our sins.

269

14. 4. Sin, continued in, shuts by degrees the door of divine mercy, until at last scarce any hope is left of obtaining pardon from God. 15. Lastly, just as the longer a stain remains upon a garment the more difficult it is to remove, so the longer the soul neglects to purify itself by Confession the more difficult the work becomes, and the more intricate, on account of the number of sins and anxiety of mind, until at last even an experienced Confessor may be unable to extricate the soul from its miserable state.

Considerations to Excite Contrition

16. Place before yourself, as distinctly as you can, the sins which have come to your remembrance, and their circumstances. 17. 2. Consider who God is, against whom you have sinned, how great, how good, how gracious to you; that He made you, that He gave His Only Son to die for you, that He made you His child in Baptism, that He has loaded you with blessings and prepared heaven for you. 18. Consider how patient He has been with you—how long-suffering in calling you and moving you to repent: Say, O most Loving God, O infinite Goodness, I repent of having offended Thee; behold me at Thy feet. O my Father, my Creator, my Benefactor, grant me the grace of a true repentance, and the blessing of a free pardon, for Thy dear Son's sake. 19. 3. Consider the infinite wickedness of sin: Say, O my Saviour, I behold Thee on the Cross, torn and wounded, Thy sacred Body streaming with Blood; this is the work of my sin. 20. In Thy Wounds, O my Saviour, I read the greatness of the guilt and malice of my sins. 21. By the greatness of Thy pains and sorrows, O my loving Redeemer, I measure the hatefulness of my offences. 22. 4. Consider the consequences of one mortal sin: that you might justly be now banished from God's presence for ever for one single unrepented, deadly sin; how many have you not committed! 23. Say, O my God, how much do I owe Thee for not cutting me off in the midst of my sins. 24. Before I fell into sin, heaven was my home, my inheritance, my country, my blessed resting-place; by sin I have given up my title to the glory of the Blessed. 25. For the sake of sin I have lost the love of Jesus, the sight of Mary, the communion with the Blessed Saints and with the Angels. 26. O my God, would that I had never offended Thee, would that I had never consented to sin.

270

27. In pity behold me now at Thy feet, full of sorrow and compunction. 28. I hate sin, which is accursed of Thee; I renounce all that would draw me away from Thee; I most bitterly repent my sin and folly, which would have deprived me forever of heaven if Thou hadst not mercifully brought me to repentance. 29. I grieve that I have sinned against Thee, O my God, who art all-good, all-bountiful, all-worthy of love. O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us sinners, who have recourse to thee.

Examination of Conscience

30. First Commandment. 31. (For the Ten Commandments, the Six Precepts of the Church, and the Seven Capital Sins in full, see pp. 20, 21, and 23.) 32. Sins against this Commandment are: 33. 1. Those which detract from the honor and worship due to God; such as: Neglect of Prayer—Superstitious practices—Divination—Consulting fortune-tellers—Attaching undue importance to dreams, omens—Tempting God by exposing one's self to danger of soul, life, or health, without grave cause—Sacrilege—Profane or superstitious use of blessed objects—Profanation of places or things consecrated to God—Receiving the Holy Sacraments in a state of mortal sin. 34. 2. Those against Faith; such as: Wilful doubt of any article of Faith—Reading or circulating books or writings against Catholic belief or practice—Joining in schismatical or heretical worship Denying one's religion—Neglecting means of religious instruction. 35. 3. Those against Hope; such as: Despair of God's mercy, or want of confidence in the power of His Grace to support us in trouble or temptation Murmuring against God's providence Presuming on God's mercy, or on the supposed efficacy of certain pious practices, in order to continue in sin. 36. 4. Those against Charity; such as: Wilfully rebellious thoughts against God— Boasting Of sin—Violating God's law, or omitting good works, through human respect. 37. Second Commandment. 38. All irreverence towards God's most Holy Name; such as: Cursing and profane swearing—False, unlawful, and unnecessary oaths—Membership in societies condemned by the Church Breaking or deferring lawful vows—Irreverence in Divine Service, and in churches and holy places even when service is not going on. 39. Third Commandment. 40. Sins against this Commandment are: 41. Neglect to hear Mass on Sundays and Holydays of Obligation Working or making others work without necessity on such days.

271

42. Fourth Commandment. 43. Sins against this Commandment are: 44. For Children: All manner of anger or hatred against parents and other lawful superiors—Provoking them to anger—Grieving them—Insulting them—Neglecting them in their necessity—Contempt or disobedience of their lawful commands. 45. For Parents: Hating their children—Cursing them—Giving scandal to them by cursing, drinking, etc—Allowing them to grow up in ignorance, idleness, or sin— Showing habitual partiality, without cause—Deferring their children's Baptism— Neglecting to watch over their bodily health, their religious instruction, the company they keep, the books they read, etc—Failing to correct them when needful—Being harsh or cruel in correction—Sending children to Protestant and other dangerous schools. 46. For Husbands and Wives; Ill-usage—Putting obstacles to the fulfilment of religious duties—Want of gentleness and consideration in regard to each other's faults- Unreasonable jealousy Neglect of household duties—Sulkiness—Injurious words. 47. For Employers: Not allowing one's domestics reasonable time for religious duties and instruction—Giving bad example to them, or allowing others to do so—Withholding their lawful wages—Not caring for them in sickness—Dismissing them arbitrarily and without cause. 48. For the Employed: Disrespect to employers—Want of obedience in matters wherein one has bound one's self to obey—Waste of time—Neglect of work—Waste of employer's property, by dishonesty -, carelessness, or neglect. 49. For Professional Men and Public Officials: Culpable lack of the knowledge relating to duties of office or profession—Neglect in discharging those duties—Injustice or partiality—Exorbitant fees. 50. For Teachers: Neglecting the progress of those confided to their care—Unjust, indiscreet, or excessive punishment—Partiality Bad example, loose and false maxims. 51. For Pupils: Disrespect—Disobedience—Stubbornness—Idleness—Waste of time. 52. For all: Contempt for the laws of our State and Country, as well as of the Church— Disobedience to lawful authority. 53. Fifth Commandment. 54. Sins against this Commandment are: 55. Unjust taking of human life (and hence, indirectly and implicitly, any violence of thought, word, or act which may lead thereto)—Exposing life or limb to danger without reasonable cause—Carelessness in leaving about poisons, dangerous drugs, weapons, etc.—Desires of revenge—Quarrels—Fights—Showing aversion or contempt for others—Refusing to speak to them when addressed—Ignoring offers of reconciliation, especially between relatives—Cherishing an unforgiving spirit—Raillery and ridicule— Insults—Irritating words and actions—Sadness at another's prosperity—Rejoicing over

272

another's misfortune—Jealousy—at attentions shown to others—Tyrannical behavior— Inducing others to sin by word or example—Gluttony—Drunkenness—Rash use of opiates—Injury to health by over-indulgence—Giving drink to others, knowing that they will abuse it. 56. Sixth and Ninth Commandments. 57. The former forbids in action what the latter forbids in thought or desire. We shall not enter into details on this subject. It is a pitch which defiles. Those who sin against these two Commandments know it well; those who do not should pray God that they may never learn. It is sufficient to remind penitents that each and every act, if deliberate, contrary to the holy virtue of Purity be it in thought or desire, in look, gesture, word, or deed—is a Mortal Sin, and as such must be mentioned in Confession intelligibly, yet modestly. 58. It will be further useful to remark: that in regard to sins of this kind it is wrong to dwell too much on details; that we should be especially careful to take note of the avoidable occasions of our falls, and to direct our purpose of amendment to the keeping away from them, rather than to the making of vague, general resolutions about the future avoidance of the sin itself. 59. Seventh and Tenth Commandments. 60. Sins against these Commandments are: 61. Stealing (What value? What damage done to property or interests?)—Possession of ill-gotten goods—Exorbitant prices—False weights and measures—Cheating— Adulteration of wares Careless or malicious injury to the property of others—Cheating at play—Appropriation of what is lent or found, without reasonable pains to return it, or to find its owner—Concealment of fraud, theft, or damage, when in duty bound to give information—Petty thefts—Culpable delay in paying lawful debts, of restitution, when able to make it—Neglect to make reasonable efforts and sacrifices in this matter, e.g., by gradually laying up the amount required. 62. Eighth Commandment. 63. Sins against this Commandment are: 64. Lying—Perjury—Frauds, public and private, such as at elections, etc.—Malicious falsehoods—lies for unjust or bad ends Lies against character, especially if told publicly—Revealing secrets—Publishing discreditable secrets about others, even if true—Refusing or delaying to restore the good name we have blackened—Slander or detraction, and encouraging these in others—Baseless accusations, groundless suspicions, rash judgments of others, in our own mind. 65. The Precepts of the Church. 66. 1. Have I neglected, without good reason, to hear Mass on Sundays and Holydays of Obligation, and to keep those days holy by avoiding all servile work?

273

67. 2. Have I failed to fast or abstain, without sufficient reason, on those days commanded to be so observed by the Church? 68. 3-4. Have I omitted to confess my mortal sins at least once a year, or to make my Easter-duty? 69. 5. Have I refused to contribute to the support of my Pastor, according to my means?—gone to Mass Sunday after Sunday, without giving anything to the collections? 70. 6. Have I entered into marriage, or aided any one else to do so, without banns, or before a State official or a Protestant minister; or without dispensation within the forbidden degrees of kindred; or with any other known impediment?

Directions for Confession

71. Approach the Confessional in a humble and contrite spirit, and kneel down by your Confessor. 72. Then, making the sign of the Cross, say, Benedicite, or, Father, bless me, for I have sinned. 73. After he has given the Blessing, say the Confiteor, * in English or Latin, as far as the words, through my most grievous fault; then say, Since my last Confession, which was— — ago, I accuse myself of ——. 74. Here name all the sins which you have recalled to mind since your last confession; and, in confessing them, be sure to observe these rules: 75. 1. Let your confession be entire; i.e., do not knowingly conceal any one mortal sin; otherwise, so far from obtaining Absolution, you do but add to your sins. 76. State the kind of sins you have committed, and, as far as you can, their number; and mention any circumstances which you think would change the nature of your sins. 77. 2. Let your confession be pure. Let everything be mentioned sincerely and exactly, without any disguise or dissimulation; let the certain things be mentioned as certain, the doubtful as doubtful. 78. Avoid all excuses for yourself, either direct or indirect; and take the greatest care not to throw blame on any one else, or to mention or hint at the name of any third person. 79. Avoid all Superfluous words and matter, and everything which does not directly concern the integrity of the confession. 80. Be as concise as you can, consistently with fulness and candor. 81. 3. Let your confession be humble, remembering that you are in an especial manner in the presence of God, from whom, through His Priest, you are seeking end expecting pardon. 82. The thought of God at this moment will be your best protection against all false shame, insincere trifling, and affectation.

274

83. After you have confessed all your sins, according to these rules, say, For these and all my other sins which I cannot now remember, I am heartily sorry, and humbly ask pardon of God, and Penance and Absolution of you, Father. 84. Therefore I beseech Blessed Mary, etc., to the end of the Confiteor. 85. Then listen attentively and humbly to the direction and advice of your Confessor, and be fully resolved to do whatever he bids you to do, either in the way of penance, or restitution, or reparation, or for the avoiding of sin in the future. 86. While he is giving you Absolution, devoutly bow your head, and with all possible fervor recite the following Act of Contrition:

After Confession

87. 1. As soon after Confession as you conveniently can, perform your Penance, and renew your resolutions of avoiding all sin, and of adopting all the means for so doing, by avoiding the occasions and temptations of sin; and then you may have a perfect confidence, with devout thankfulness, that all your sins, through the mercy of God, are forgiven. 88. 2. Consider how you can amend your life. 89. This will be best done by fixing your attention on one or two of your more prominent defects of character, and directing your chief efforts to overcome these by such means as the following; 90. 1. Conceive a strong desire to overcome these faults, frequently renew your resolution, and examine yourself particularly upon them. 91. 2. When you commit them, punish yourself in some way for it. 92. 3 Endeavor always to have the thought of Christ present in your mind, and direct short prayers to Him, especially when you are attacked by temptations, or when you are necessarily exposed to the danger of sinning. 93. 4. Meditate frequently on those subjects most calculated to excite your fears, hopes, and affections, as Death and Judgment, the Love of God, His kindnesses to you, His promises, etc. 94. Be earnest and persevere with a good hope of victory, through the grace of Jesus Christ.

275

Extreme Unction

Table 13. Catechesis on Extreme Unction RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1, 9, 11 272-273 Name/Definition 2-3 271 2 Nature 4-7a, 10 3-4, 6-7 Institution 8 1 Minister 13 277 Effects 14-16 274-275 5 Necessity Disposition 12 276 8 Ceremonies 7b a297-306 (pt. 2, ch. 6, art. 1-16). bLesson 25: On Extreme Unction and Holy Orders. c [No Title], 482.

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Extreme Unction

1. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in His tender solicitude for those whom He has redeemed by His precious Blood, has been pleased to institute another Sacrament to help us at that most important hour on which eternity depends - the hour of death. 2. This Sacrament is called Extreme Unction, or the Last Anointing. 3. Of this Sacrament St. James the Apostle thus speaks: Is any man sick among you? 4. Let him call in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him (v. 14, 15). 5. These words show the great and salutary graces bestowed by this Sacrament. 6. The Priest, in administering this Sacrament, anoints the five principal senses of the body - the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the Figure 15. Focus of Catechesis for Extreme Unction

276

lips, the hands - and the feet, because these may have been employed, during life, in offending God. 7. At each anointing he pronounces these words: Through this holy unction, and of His most tender mercy, may the Lord pardon thee whatsoever sins thou hast committed by sight, hearing, etc. 8. The sick person should endeavor to prepare himself to receive this Sacrament by acts of sincere contrition for all his sins, by great confidence in the tender mercies of his Redeemer, and by a perfect resignation of himself to the holy will of God.

Matrimony

Table 14. Catechesis on Matrimony RC Framework RCa BCb Manualc Administration 1 Name/Definition 2-3 282 Nature 4-9, 11, 16-21 284, 287 2-4, 6-7 Institution 10, 15 283 1, 5 Minister Effects 12-14, 23-25285 Necessity Disposition 22, 26-27 286, 288-291 8-12 30-34 18-28 Ceremonies 28-29 13-17 a327-343 (pt. 2, ch. 8, art. 1-34). bLesson 26: On Matrimony. cInstructions, 431.

Manual of Prayers Instruction on Matrimony

Instructions

1. The holy state of Matrimony was instituted by Almighty God in the beginning of the world, and under the law of nature had a particular blessing annexed to it. 2. God created man to His own image: to the image of God He created them: male and female He created them.

277

3. And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. i. 27, 28). 4. Under the Mosaic law the Almighty more distinctly announced its dignity and obligations. 5. Afterwards, under the Christian law, our Divine Redeemer sanctified this state still more, and from a natural and civil contract raised Matrimony Figure 16. Focus of Catechesis for Matrimony to the dignity of a Sacrament. 6. And St. Paul declared it to be a representation of that sacred union which Jesus Christ had formed with His spouse the Church. 7. This mystery is great, but I say in Christ, and in the Church (Ephes. v.32). 8. Seeing, therefore, that this state is so very holy, and instituted for such great and holy ends, and, moreover, that it has so great a grace annexed to it (when the Sacrament of Matrimony is worthily received) as to put the married couple into the way of being happy both in this world and in the world to come, they who intend to enter into this state ought to proceed with the greatest prudence and make the best possible preparation, that they may obtain these precious and abundant graces from Almighty God. 9. 1. They ought to enter into this holy state with the pure intention of promoting the honor and glory of God, and the sanctification of their own souls. 10. 2. They ought to select a person of their own religion; experience shows that a want of union in faith between husband and wife is frequently attended with the worst consequences, both to themselves and to their children. 11. A Catholic cannot, without special dispensation, lawfully marry a person of another religion; and if, for good reason, such marriage is permitted, the Catholic party cannot enter into an agreement that any of the children shall be brought up in any other than the Catholic faith, and the non-Catholic party must make beforehand a positive and solemn promise, 1st, that no obstacle of any kind shall be put in the way of the practice of all Catholic duties by the Catholic party; and, 2d, that all the children who shall be born to them shall be baptized and brought up as Catholics. 12. 3. They must obtain the pardon of their sins by worthily approaching the Sacrament of Penance, and then sanctify their marriage by the fervent reception of the Holy Communion. 13. 4. The Marriage should be celebrated in the morning, and with a Nuptial Mass.

278

14. That this is the constant and universal and emphatic desire of Holy Church, the following quotations from the Decrees and from the Pastoral Letter of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore very clearly show: 15. Let those who have the cure of souls take every occasion earnestly to exhort the faithful to the keeping of that pious and praiseworthy custom of the Church whereby Marriages are celebrated, not in the night-time, but during Mass, and accompanied by the Nuptial Blessing. . . . 16. This custom is held to be not merely a commendable but quite a necessary one, now in these present days, when the foes of religion are leaving nothing untried in their efforts to deprive, if possible, Holy Matrimony of all sanctity, and of all likeness to a Sacrament, and to degrade it to the level of a mere civil contract. [Decrees, N. 125.] 17. Let them enter into marriage only through worthy and holy motives, with the blessings of religion, especially with the blessing of the Nuptial Mass. [Pastoral Letter, p. 87.] 18. 5. They ought frequently to reflect on their duties and obligations as inculcated in the word of God. 19. St. Paul, strongly inculcating these duties by the great example of Christ and His Church, says: 20. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord; because man is head of the woman, as Christ is Head of the Church; Himself is Saviour of His body. 21. But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also women to their husbands in all things. 22. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also hath loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it. . . . 23. So, also, the men ought to love their wives as their own bodies. 24. He who loveth his wife, loveth himself. 25. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ the Church. . . . 26. For this cause man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 27. This mystery is great, but I say in Christ, and in the Church. 28. Nevertheless let you also severally each love his wife, as he loveth himself: and let the wife fear her husband (Ephes. v. 22, etc.).

279

Bibliography

Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1886.

Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi, Habiti a Die IX Novembris usque ad Diem VII Decembris A.D. MDCCCLXXXIV. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1884.

The American Bookseller. "Lawrence Kehoe." Obituary. March 1, 1890.

The American Stationer. "Lawrence Kehoe." Obituary. March 6, 1890.

Announcement. Publishers Weekly: Catholic Publication Society, 1891.

The Annual American Catalogue: 1889. New York: Publishers Weekly, 1890.

"August 1883 Catalogue of the Catholic Publication Society Co.'s Publications." In The Publishers' Trade List Annual. New York: F. LevPoldt, 1883.

Augustine. The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith Hope and Charity. Translated by Bruce Harbert. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999.

Ave Maria. "Notes and Remarks." Obituary. March 8, 1890.

Baltimore Catechism Two. Charlotte, NC: Saint Benedict Press, 2010.

Barry, Colman James. The Catholic Church and German Americans. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953.

Barry, William James. The Sacramentals of the Holy Catholic Church: Or Flowers from the Garden of the Liturgy. Cincinnati, OH: John P. Walsh, 1858.

Bartlett, William E. The Way of the Cross: Illustrated by Texts from Holy Scripture. Baltimore: Kreuzer Brothers, 1885.

Batiffol, Pierre. History of the Roman Breviary. Translated by Atwell M. Y. Baylay. London: Longmans, Green, 1912.

Beauduin, Lambert. Liturgy the Life of the Church. Translated by Virgil Michel. 3rd ed. Farnborough, UK: St. Michael's Abbey Press, 2002.

Bellinger, Gerhard J. Bibliographie des Catechismus Romanus, ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos: 1566-1978. Baden-Baden: V. Koerner, 1983.

280

Bishop, Edmund. "On the Origin of the Prymer." In Liturgica Historica, 211-237. Oxford: Clarendon, 1918.

Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy. Thirty-Five Years of the BCL Newsletter: 1965-2000. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004.

Blom, F., J. Blom, F. Dorsten, G. Scott. English Catholic Books, 1701-1800: A Bibliography. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1996.

Blom, J. M. The Post-Tridentine English Primer. London: Catholic Record Society, 1982.

"Book Notices." The American Catholic Quarterly Review 14, no. 55 (1889): 560-576.

Bossy, John. The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Botte, Bernard. From Silence to Participation: An Insider's View of Liturgical Renewal. Translated by John Sullivan. Washington, DC: Pastoral Press, 1988.

Breviarium Romanum: Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini Restitutum. Editio prima post typicam ed. 4 vols. Regensburg: Pustet, 1888.

Brownson, Orestes. "Prayer-Books." Brownson's Quarterly Review 2, no. 6 (1857): 184-190.

Bryce, Mary Charles. Pride of Place: The Role of the Bishops in the Development of Catechesis in the United States. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1984.

Burton, Edwin Hubert. The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1691-1781). 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green, 1909.

Busch, William. "From Other Times: The Voice of a Plenary Council." Orate Fratres 21 (1947): 452-58.

Bussard, Paul C. "The Vernacular Missal in Religious Education." PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1937.

Butterworth, Charles C. The English Primers, 1529-1545: Their Publication and Connection with the English Bible and the Reformation in England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1953.

Byrne, Patricia. "American Ultramontanism." Theological Studies 56, no. 2 (1995): 301-326.

Cabie, Robert. "Christian Initiation." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew O'Connell, 3:11-100. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988.

281

Campbell, Stanislaus. From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office, 1964-1971. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995.

Carmody, Charles J. "The Roman Catholic Catechesis in the United States 1784-1930: A Study of Its Theory, Development, and Materials." PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1975.

Casey, Thomas Francis. The Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide and the Revision of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore (1829-1830). Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1957.

Casper, Scott E. The Industrial Book, 1840-1880. Vol. 3 of A History of the Book in America Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Cassidy, Francis P. "Catholic Education in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore: I." The Catholic Historical Review 34, no. 3 (1948): 257-305.

A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1885.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent. Translated by J. Donovan. 1829. Reprint, New York: Catholic Publication Society, n.d.

Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of Pope Pius V. Translated by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan. New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1923.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent: Translated into English; With Notes. Translated by Theodore Alois Buckley. London: George Routledge and Co., 1852.

"Catechisms and Prayer Books, 1884." In Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community, edited by Joseph P. Chinnici and Angelyn Dries, 90-93. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000.

Catholic Book Talk. "The New Prayer-Book." Talk about Recent Publications. July 1889.

______. Notes. September 1890.

______. "Testimonials from Archbishops and Bishops." February 1890.

______. Notes. May 1891.

Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1988.

282

Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers. Revised ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2007.

Catholic School Book Company. The Official Prayer Book. 1897 Catholic Family Annual, 1896.

Cavallotto, Giuseppe. "The Council of Trent and the Origins of Modern Catechesis." In 'Going, Teach': Commentary on the Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae of John Paul II, edited by Cesare Bonivento and Institute of Missionary Catechesis of the Pontifical Urban University, 138-167. Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1980.

Ceremonial for the Use of the Catholic Churches in the United States of America. 5th ed. Baltimore: John B. Piet, 1882.

Challoner, Richard. The Garden of the Soul; or, A Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instructions for Christians Who (Living in the World) Aspire to Devotion. 6th Corrected ed. London: T. Meighan, 1751. http://find.galegroup.com.proxycu.wrlc.org/ecco/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=E CCO&userGroupName=wash31575&tabID=T001&docId=CB3332892477&type=multip age&contentSet=ECCOArticles&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIMILE (accessed August 25, 2013).

______. The Garden of the Soul; or, A Manual of Spiritual Exercises and Instructions for Christians Who (Living in the World) Aspire to Devotion. London: n.p., 1755. http://find.galegroup.com.proxycu.wrlc.org/ecco/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=E CCO&userGroupName=wash31575&tabID=T001&docId=CW122718914&type=multip age&contentSet=ECCOArticles&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIMILE (accessed August 22, 2013).

Chauvet, Louis-Marie. The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001.

Chen, Josephine Ti Ti. "A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1891-1895." master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1956.

Chinnici, Joseph P. "Organization of the Spiritual Life: American Catholic Devotional Works, 1791-1866." Theological Studies 40, no. 2 (1979): 229-255.

______. Living Stones: The History and Structure of Catholic Spiritual Life in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Chinnici, Joseph P., and Angelyn Dries, eds. Prayer and Practice in the American Catholic Community. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000.

"The Christian Press Association." Publishers Weekly, March 3, 1894.

283

Cohalan, Florence D. A Popular History of the Archdiocese of New York. Yonkers, NY: United States Catholic Historical Society, 1983.

Collectio Rituum: Ad Instar Appendicis Ritualis Romani, pro Dioecesibus Statuum Foederatorum Americae Septentrionalis. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954.

Collectio Rituum: Pro Diœcesibus Civitatum Fœderatarum Americæ Septentrionalis. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1964.

Committee on Divine Worship. Ten Years of the Newsletter: 2001-2010. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2004.

Compendium Ritualis Romani: Ad Usum Dioecesum Provinciae Baltimorensis Jussu Concilii Provincialis Balimorensis III. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1842.

Complete Line of Catholic Prayer-Books for the Season of 1894-95. Publishers Weekly: John Murphy, 1894.

Concilia Provincialia Baltimori habita ab Anno 1829 usque ad Annum 1849. Altera ed. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1851.

Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis II: In Ecclesia Metropolitana Baltimorensi a die VII ad diem XXI Octobris A.D. MDCCCLXVI habiti, et a Sede Apostolica Recogniti: Acta et Decreta. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1868.

Concilium Plenarium totius Americae Septentrionalis Foederatae Baltimori habitum anno 1852. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1853.

Congregation for the Clergy. General Directory for Catechesis. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1998.

Connell, Frances J. "Catechism Revision." In The Confraternity Comes of Age: A Historical Symposium, 189-201. Paterson, NJ: Confraternity Publications, 1956.

Copyright Office of the United States. Record Book: Numbers 18,001 to 20,000 R. Vol. 10, 1886.

______. Record Book: Numbers 28,001 To 30,000 U. Vol. 15, 1888.

______. Record Book: Numbers 18,001 to 20,000 U. Vol. 10, 1889.

______. Assignments of Copyrights. Vol. 17, 1896.

______. Assignments of Copyrights. Vol. 55, 1914.

284

______. Catalogue of Copyright Entries: Part 1, Group 1, Books. Vol. 12 Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1916.

______. Assignments of Copyrights. Vol. 73, 1918.

______. Catalogue of Copyright Entries: Part 1, Group 1 Books Including List of Renewals. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1932.

Corecco, Eugenio. La Formazione della Chiesa Cattolica negli Stati Uniti d'America attraverso l'Attività Sinodale: Con Particolare Riguardo al Problema Dell'Amministrazione dei Beni Ecclesiastici. Brescia: Morcelliana, 1970.

Corish, Patrick J. The Irish Catholic Experience: A Historical Survey. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1985.

Coughlin, John J. Canon Law: A Comparative Study with Anglo-American Legal Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Cressy, David. Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Crichton, J.D. "Richard Challoner: Catechist and Spiritual Writer." Clergy Review 66 (1981): 269-275.

Cuming, Geoffrey. The Godly Order: Texts and Studies Relating to the Book of Common Prayer. London: Alcuin Club/SPCK, 1983.

Curran, Robert Emmett. Michael Augustine Corrigan and the Shaping of Conservative Catholicism in America, 1878-1902. New York: Arno Press, 1978.

Dalmais, Irénée Henri. "The Liturgy and the Deposit of Faith." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew J. O'Connell, 1:273-280. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986.

Dawson, M. Avelina. "A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1881-1885." master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1951.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 2, Trent to Vatican II, Edited by Norman P. Tanner Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990.

Dehne, Carl. "Roman Catholic Popular Devotions." Worship 49, no. 8 (1975): 446-460.

Diekmann, Godfrey. "Lay Participation in the Liturgy of the Church." In A Symposium on the Life and Work of Pope Pius X, edited by Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 137-58. Washington, DC: Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1946.

285

______. Come, Let Us Worship. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961.

Dolan, Jay P. Catholic Revivalism: The American Experience, 1830-1900. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1978.

Dolan, Timothy Michael. Some Seed Fell on Good Ground: The Life of Edwin V. O'Hara. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992.

Donnellan, Michael. "Bishops and Uniformity in Religious Education: Vatican I to Vatican II." In Sourcebook for Modern Catechetics, edited by Michael Warren, 232-243. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press, 1983.

Dougherty, Joseph. From Altar-Throne to Table: The Campaign for Frequent Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.

Duffy, Eamon. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400-c.1580. 2nd ed. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2005.

______. Marking the Hours: English People and Their Prayers. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2006.

Easterly, Frederick John. The Life of Rt. Rev. Joseph Rosati, C.M.: First Bishop of St. Louis, 1789-1843. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1942.

Edens, Bill, and Ken McGuire. Paulist Second Chronicles. n.p.: Magi Press, 2000.

Editors. "Literary and Trade Notes." Publishers Weekly, November 12, 1887.

Ellis, John Tracy. The Life of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1834-1921. 2 vols. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1952.

______. "The Centennial of the First Plenary Council of Baltimore." In Perspectives in American Catholicism, edited by John Tracy Ellis, 134-162. Baltimore: Helicon, 1963.

England, John. "Explanation of the Mass." In The Roman Missal Translated into the English Language for the Use of the Laity: To Which is Prefixed, an Historical Explanation of the Vestments, Ceremonies, etc., Appertaining to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, edited by John England, ix-cvii. New York: W.H. Creagh, 1822.

Erler, Mary C. "Devotional Literature." In 1400-1557. Edited by Lotte Hellinga and J. B.Trapp. Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, edited by John Barnard, D.J. McKitterick and I.R. Willison, 495-525. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Eustace, Bartholomew. Ritual for Small Churches: A Translation of the Memoriale Rituum Issued by Pope Benedict XIII, and Revised by Authority of Pope Benedict XV. New York: J. F. Wagner, 1935.

286

Excerpta ex Rituali Romano pro Administratione Sacramentorum ad Commodiorem Missionariorum Dioecesum Provinciae Baltimorensis usum. Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1842.

"Exteriors & Interiors: Books, Booklets and Brochures." American Bookmaker: A Journal of Technical Art and Information 9, no. 1 (1889): 4-8.

Fanning, Charles. The Irish Voice in America: 250 Years of Irish-American Fiction. 2nd ed. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2000.

Ferrone, Rita. Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium. New York: Paulist Press, 2007.

Finkenzeller, Josef. Die Lehre von den Sakramenten im Allgemeinen: Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart. Freiburg: Herder, 1981.

Fogarty, Gerald P. The Vatican and the Americanist Crisis: Denis J. O'Connell, American Agent in Rome, 1885-1903. Rome: Università Gregoriana, 1974.

______. The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870-1965. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1985.

______. "American Catholic Translations of the Bible." In The Bible and Bibles in America, edited by Ernest S. Frerichs, 117-143. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.

______. "The Catholic Hierarchy in the United States Between the Third Plenary Council and the Condemnation of Americanism." U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 3 (1993): 19-35.

Fortescue, Adrian. The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. London: Burns & Oates, 1918.

______. The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described. 2nd ed. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1920.

Fullam, Paul J. "The Catholic Publication Society and Its Successors: 1866-1916." Historical Records and Studies 47 (1959): 12-77.

The Garden of the Soul: A Manual of Spiritual Exercises, In Which are Included Many Devotions of Recent Practice, and Approved Of By The Church. London: R. Washbourne, 1872. http://archive.org/details/gardensoulorama00chalgoog.

Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 109-14. Translated by Dominican Nuns. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1952.

______. Beatitude: A Commentary on St. Thomas' Theological Summa, Ia IIae, qq. 1-54. Translated by Patrick Cummins. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1956.

"General Introduction." In Book of Blessings: Approved for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the

287

Apostolic See, edited by International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 21-31. New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1989.

Gleason, Philip. "Baltimore III and Education." U.S. Catholic Historian 4, no. 3 (1985): 273- 313.

The Golden Manual: Being a Guide to Catholic Devotion, Public and Private, Compiled from Approved Sources. London: Burns and Lambert, 1850.

Guilday, Peter. The Life and Times of John Carroll, Archbishop of Baltimore, 1735-1815. New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1922.

______. The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy, 1792-1919. Washington, DC: National Catholic Welfare Council, 1923.

______. The Life and Times of John England, First Bishop of Charleston (1786-1842). 2 vols. New York: America Press, 1927.

______. A History of the Councils of Baltimore, 1791-1884. New York: Macmillan, 1932.

Gutjahr, Paul C. An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777- 1880. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Hagan, John, ed. A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1911.

Healey, Robert C. A Catholic Book Chronicle: The Story of P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1826-1951. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1951.

Heimann, Mary. Catholic Devotion in Victorian England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

______. "Catholic Revivalism in Worship and Devotion." In World Christianities, c1815 - c1914, edited by Sheridan Gilley and Brian Stanley, 8:70-83. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Holmes, J. Derek. The Triumph of the Holy See: A Short History of the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century. London: Burns & Oates, 1978.

Hoskins, Edgar. Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis; or, Sarum and York Primers with Kindred Books and Primers of the Reformed Roman Use. London: Longmans, Green, 1901.

Hun, Marcus T. "Murphy v. Christian Press Assn. Pub. Co.: Second Department, March Term, 1899." In Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 38:426-30. Albany, NY: Banks & Company, 1899.

288

Hurley, Denis E. "The Bishop's Role in the Catechetical Renewal." In Teaching all Nations: A Symposium on Modern Catechetics, edited by Johannes Hofinger, translated by Clifford Howell, 341-356. New York: Herder and Herder, 1961.

International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982.

The Irish Monthly. Notes on New Books. July 1891.

Jungmann, Josef A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia). Translated by Francis A. Brunner. New Revised and Abridged ed. New York: Benziger, 1959.

Just Out! A New Edition of the "Manual of Prayers". The Ecclesiastical Review: Christian Press Association, 39 no. 5, 1908.

Karant-Nunn, Susan C. "A Women's Rite: Churching and Reformation of Ritual." In Problems in the Historical Anthropology of Early Modern Europe, edited by R. Po-Chia Hsia and R. W. Scribner, 111-138. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997.

Kasteel, Annemarie. Francis Janssens, 1843-1897: A Dutch-American Prelate. Lafayette, LA: Center for Louisiana Studies, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1992.

Kauffman, Christopher J. Tradition and Transformation in Catholic Culture: The Priests of Saint Sulpice in the United States from 1791 to the Present. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

Kerr, Donal. "The Early Nineteenth Century: Patterns of Change." In Irish Spirituality, edited by Michael Maher, 135-144. Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1981.

Larkin, Emmet. "The Devotional Revolution in Ireland, 1850-75." The American Historical Review 77, no. 3 (1972): 625-652.

The Literary World. "News and Notes." Obituary. April 12, 1890.

Luella, Mary. "Catholic Commercial Publishing in the United States." In Catholic Library Practice, edited by David Martin, 1:219-237. Portland, OR: University of Portland Press, 1947.

MacGregor, Alistair. "Candlemas: A Festival of Roman Origin." In Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, edited by Chris Maunder, 137-153. London: Burns & Oates, 2008.

Manual of Prayers for Congregational Use: Version Prescribed by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of England. Leamington: Art and Book Company, 1886.

A Manual of Prayers for the Use of The Catholic Laity: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. New ed. New York: P. J. Kenedy & Sons, 1930.

289

A Manual of Prayers for the Use of The Catholic Laity: Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. New ed. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1930.

Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity: Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1889. https://archive.org/details/manualofprayersf00wood (accessed December 19, 2014).

Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic Laity: Prepared and Published by Order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1889.

Manual of the Ceremonies Used in the Catholic Church: Faithfully Translated by Order of the First Council, held in Baltimore, in 1829, for the Use of the Churches of the United States of America. Boston: H. L. Devereux, 1833.

Marthaler, Berard L. Catechetics in Context: Notes and Commentary on the General Catechetical Directory Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1973.

______. "A Book of Common Prayer for Roman Catholics." Worship 61, no. 3 (1987): 208- 223.

______. The Catechism Yesterday and Today: The Evolution of a Genre. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995.

Martimort, Aimé Georges. "The Assembly." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew J. O'Connell, 1:89- 111. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986.

______. "The Dialogue Between God and His People." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew O'Connell, 1:273-280. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986.

______. "Prayer for the Sick and Sacramental Anointing." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew O'Connell, 3:117-137. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988.

Marx, Paul B. Virgil Michel and the Liturgical Movement. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1957.

Mathis, Michael A. "Collectio Rituum." In The Confraternity Comes of Age: A Historical Symposium, 301-310. Paterson, NJ: Confraternity Publications, 1956.

McAvoy, Thomas. The Great Crisis in American Catholic History, 1895-1900. Chicago: H. Regnery, 1957.

290

McCartin, James P. Prayers of the Faithful: The Shifting Spiritual Life of American Catholics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

McDonnell, Francis R. "An Inquiry into the History of the Baltimore Catechism." master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1943.

McHugh, John A., and Charles J. Callan. "Introduction." In Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of Pope Pius V, translated by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, xi-xxxvii. New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1923.

McSweeney, Bill. "Catholic Piety in the Nineteenth Century." Social Compass 34, no. 2-3 (1987): 203-210.

Meagher, Jas. L. Teaching Truth by Signs and Ceremonies; or, The Church, Its Rites and Services, Explained for the People. New York: Russell Brothers, 1882.

______. The Festal Year; or, The Origin, History, Ceremonies and Meaning of the Sundays, Seasons, Feasts and Festivals of the Church During the Year, Explained for the People. New York: Russell Brothers, 1883.

______. The Great Cathedrals and Most Celebrated Churches of the World. New York: Russell Brothers, 1884.

______. The Seven Gates of Heaven; or, The Teachings, Discipline, Customs, and Manners of Administering the Sacraments, etc. Explained for the People. New York: Russell Brothers, 1885.

______. Man, the Mirror of the Universe; or, The Agreement of Science and Religion, Explained for the People. New York: Russell Brothers, 1887.

______. Christ's Kingdom: Or the Church and her Divine Constitution, Organization and Framework, Explained for the People. New York: Russell Brothers, 1892.

______. The Tragedy of Calvary or The Minute Details of Christ's Life from Palm Sunday Morning till the Resurrection and Ascension. New York: Christian Press Association, 1905.

______. How Christ Said the First Mass, or The Lord's Last Supper. New York: Christian Press Association, 1906.

Meehan, Thomas F. "The Mirrors of Barclay Street." Columbia, December 1923.

Michel, Virgil. "A Program for a Liturgical Movement." America, April 10, 1926.

Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.

291

Miller, John H. Fundamentals of the Liturgy. Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1960.

Missale Romanum: Ex Decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini Restitutum. Editio octava juxta editionem typicam ed. Regensburg: Pustet, 1894.

The Mission-Book of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. New ed. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet, 1862.

Mitchell, Nathan. Cult and Controversy: The Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass. New York: Pueblo, 1982.

Mitchell, Nathan D., and John F. Baldovin. "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani and the Class of Liturgical Documents to Which it Belongs." In A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, edited by Edward Foley, Nathan D. Mitchell and Joanne M. Pierce, 1-27. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007.

Moesslein, Mark. "Origin of the Baltimore Catechism." Ecclesiastical Review 93 (1935): 613- 614.

"New Books." Catholic World, May 1907.

"The New Manual of Prayers." Catholic World, September 1889.

The New Prayer-Book. Catholic Book Talk: Catholic Publication Society, February 1890.

The New Prayer-Book. Catholic Book Talk: Catholic Publication Society, July 1889.

Newman, John Henry. "A Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on His Recent Eirenicon." Catholic World, April 1866.

Nilles, Nicolaus. Commentaria in Concilium Plenarium Baltimorense Tertium ex Praelectionibus Academicis. Domestica ed. 2 vols. Innsbrück: F. Rauch (C. Pustet), 1888.

Now Ready. The New Prayer-Book. Publishers Weekly: John Murphy, 1889.

O'Brien, David. Faith and Friendship: Catholicism in the Diocese of Syracuse, 1886-1986. Syracuse, NY: Office for Communications, Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, 1987.

O'Brien, Raymond J. "History of Our English Catechism." Ecclesiastical Review 91 (1934): 591- 596.

O'Keeffe, Henry E. "Father Woodman--A Tribute." The Catholic World, January 1925.

O'Malley, John W. Trent: What Happened at the Council. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013.

292

O'Meagher, Joseph Casimir. Some Historical Notices of the O'Meaghers of lkerrin. 1890.

O'Toole, James M. The Faithful: A History of Catholics in America. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008.

The Official Catholic Directory. Berkeley Heights, NJ: P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 2011.

Ohmann, Richard. "Diverging Paths: Books and Magazines in the Transition to Corporate Capitalism." In Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880-1940, edited by Carl F. Kaestle, Janice A. Radway, 4:102-115. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta, Et Alia Quaedam Officia Ecclesiastica Rite Peragendi in Missione Anglicana; Ex Rituali Romano. Derby: T. Richardson and Sons, 1856.

Panchok, Frances. "The Catholic Church and the Theatre in New York, 1890-1920." PhD diss., The Catholic University of America, 1976.

Parsch, Pius. The Liturgy of the Mass. Translated by H. E. Winstone. 3rd ed. London: B. Herder, 1957.

Parsons, Gerald. "Victorian Roman Catholicism: Emancipation, Expansion and Achievement." In Religion in Victorian Britain, edited by Gerald Parsons, 1:146-183. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988.

"Pastoral Letter of the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States." In The Memorial Volume: A History of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, November 9 - December 7, 1884, 1- 31. Baltimore: Baltimore Publishing Co., 1885.

Patterson, L. Ray, and Stanley W. Lindberg. The Nature of Copyright: A Law of Users' Rights. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

The Paulist Calendar. "Father Woodman." Obituary. January 1925.

Pecklers, Keith F. The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.

______. Dynamic Equivalence: The Living Language of Christian Worship. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Pierce, Joanne M. "'Green Women' and Blood Pollution: Some Medieval Rituals for the Churching of Women after Childbirth." Studia Liturgica 29, no. 2 (1999): 191-215.

______. "Marginal Bodies: Liturgical Structures of Pain and Deliverance in the Middle Ages." In Practicing Catholic: Ritual, Body, and Contestation in Catholic Faith, edited by Bruce

293

T. Morrill, Joanna E. Ziegler, Susan Rodgers, 59-67. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Poels, H.A. "Book Reviews." The Catholic University Bulletin 12, no. 1 (1906): 129-30.

The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortations of John Paul II. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998.

Priest of the Congregation of St. Paul. The Bridal Wreath: Containing the Entire Ritual of the Catholic Church for the Solemnization of Holy Matrimony, in Latin and English. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1886.

Publishers Weekly. Weekly Record of New Publications. August 17, 1889.

Publishers Weekly. "Lawrence Kehoe." Obituary. March 8, 1890.

______. "Business Notes." April 30, 1892.

The Raccolta; or, Collection of Prayers and Good Works. Woodstock, MD: Woodstock College, 1878.

Rahner, Karl. Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology. Vol. 2. 6 vols. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968.

Rea, R.T. "Lawrence Kehoe." In The Illustrated Catholic Family Annual for 1891, 32-36. New York: Catholic Publication Society, 1891.

"The Reader." The Messenger, September 1, 1905.

Reinburg, Virginia. "Prayer and the Book of Hours." In Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours, edited by Roger S. Wieck, 39-44. New York: George Braziller, 1988.

Relationes eorum quae Disceptata fuerunt ab Illmis ac Revmis Metropolitis cum Suis Suffraganeis in Suis Singulis Provinciis super Schema Futuri Concilii: Praesertim vero Super Capita cuique Commissa. Baltimore: n.p., 1884.

Rituale Romanum: Cui Novissma Accedit Benedictionum et Instructionum Appendix. Edito typica ed. Regensburg: Pustet, 1884.

Robichaud, Paul. "Evangelizing America: Transformations in Paulist Mission." U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 2 (1993): 61-78.

Rodríguez, Pedro. Catechismus Romanus, seu, Catechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini ad Parochos Pii Quinti Pont. Max. Iussu Editus. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1989.

294

Rodríguez, Pedro, and Raúl Lanzetti. El Catecismo Romano: Fuentes e Historia del Texto y de la Redacción, Bases criticas para el Estudio Teológico del Catecismo del Concilio de Trento (1566). Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1982.

The Roman Catechism: Translated and Annotated in accord with Vatican II and Post-conciliar Documents and the New Code of Canon Law. Translated by Robert I. Bradley and Eugene Kevane. Boston: St Paul, 1985.

The Roman Ritual. Translated by Philip T. Weller. Complete ed. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1964.

The Roman Ritual: In Latin and English with Rubrics and Planechant Notation. Translated by Philip T. Weller. 3 vols. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1946-1952.

Rousseau, Olivier. The Progress of the Liturgy: An Historical Sketch from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century to the Pontificate of Pius X. Translated by The Benedictines of Westminster Priory. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1951.

Ruskin, Mary Patricia. "A Survey of Catholic Americana and Catholic Book Publishing in the United States, 1886-1890." master's thesis, Catholic University of America, 1952.

Rutherford, Richard, and Tony Barr. The Death of a Christian: The Order of Christian Funerals. Rev. ed. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.

Saenger, Paul. "Books of Hours and the Reading Habits of the Later Middle Ages." In The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe, edited by Roger Chartier, translated by Lydia G. Cochrane, 141-173. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Satolli, Francesco. "The Fourth Power: The Place of the Press in the Public Life." In Loyalty to Church and State: The Mind of His Excellency, Francis Archbishop Satolli, edited by J. R. Slattery, 161-169. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1895.

Second Edition Now Ready. The New Prayer-Book. Catholic Book Talk: Catholic Publication Society.

Senior, Donald. "The New Testament and Related Topics." Bible Today 48, no. 6 (2010): 364- 370.

Sharp, John K. "How the Baltimore Catechism Originated." Ecclesiastical Review 81 (1929): 573-586.

______. "The Origin of the Baltimore Catechism." Ecclesiastical Review 83 (1930): 620-624.

Shea, John Gilmary. "The Coming Plenary Council of Baltimore." American Catholic Quarterley Review 9 (1884): 340-357.

295

______. Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, Bishop and First Archbishop of Baltimore: Embracing the History of the Catholic Church in the United States. 1763- 1815. New York: J. G. Shea, 1888.

Shelley, Thomas J. The Bicentennial History of the Archdiocese of New York, 1808-2008. Strasbourg: Editions du Signe, 2007.

Sheppard, Lancelot C. The Liturgical Books. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962.

Sicard, Damien. "Christian Death." In The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, edited by Aimé Georges Martimort, translated by Matthew O'Connell, 3:221-240. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988.

Sigler, Gerald J. "The Influence of Charles Borromeo on the Laws of the Roman Ritual." The Jurist 24 (1964): 119-168; 319-334.

Slawson, Douglas J. The Foundation and First Decade of the National Catholic Welfare Council. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992.

Sloyan, Gerard S. "Religious Education: From Early Christianity to Medieval Times." In Shaping the Christian Message: Essays in Religious Education, edited by Gerard S. Sloyan, 3-37. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Smith, S. B. Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. New York: P. O'Shea, 1874.

Smolarski, Dennis C. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 1969-2002: A Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Sodi, Manlio, and Juan Javier Flores Arcas. "Introduzione." In Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614), edited by Manlio Sodi and Juan Javier Flores Arcas. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004.

Spalding, David. "Martin John Spalding, Legislator." Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 75, no. 3 (1964): 131-160.

Spalding, Thomas W. The Premier See: A History of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, 1789-1989. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, for the Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America. Baltimore: Metropolitan Press, 1843.

St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, Originally Prepared for Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America. 2nd ed. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1848.

296

St. Vincent's Manual: Containing a Selection of Prayers and Devotional Exercises, Originally Prepared for Use of the Sisters of Charity in the United States of America. Baltimore: John Murphy, 1887.

A Statement Explaining Collectio Rituum Anglicae Linguae. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1952.

Stevenson, Kenneth. Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

"Suit to Maintain the Price of a Catholic Prayer-Book." Publishers Weekly, March 3, 1898.

Summa Theologiae. Vol. 57 New York: Blackfriars, McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Summa Theologiae. Vol. 59 New York: Blackfriars, McGraw-Hill, 1964.

"Supplementum Ritualis Romani pro Provinciis Americae Septentrionalis Foederatae." In Rituale Romanum: Cui Novissima Accedit Bendictionum et Instructionum Appendix, 1- 30. Regensburg: Pustet, 1884.

Taft, Robert F. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today. 2nd ed. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993.

Taves, Ann. The Household of Faith: Roman Catholic Devotions in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Thurston, Herbert. "Our English Benediction Service." The Month 106, no. 496 (1905): 394-404.

______. The Stations of the Cross: An Account of Their History and Devotional Purpose. 1914. Reprint, London: Burns & Oates, 1906.

______. "The 'Churching' of Our Blessed Lady." The Month 153 (1929): 422-433.

Trappes-Lomax, Michael, ed. Early Chapters in the History of Burns & Oates. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1949.

Trisco, Robert Frederick. Bishops and Their Priests in the United States. New York: Garland, 1988.

Turner, Paul. Ages of Initiation: The First Two Christian Millennia. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.

"U.S. Catholic Parishes Grow in Size and Diversity." The CARA Report 16, no. 3 (Winter 2011).

297

The Ursuline Manual: Or A Collection of Prayers, Spiritual Exercises, &c. Interspersed with the Various Instructions Necessary for Forming Youth to the Practice of Solid Piety. Third Revised and Enlarged ed. London: Keating & Brown, 1830.

Vogel, Cyrille. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Translated by William George Storey and Niels Krogh Rasmussen. Washington, DC: Pastoral Press, 1986. von Arx, Walter. "Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale." Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte 63 (1969): 39-57.

______. "The Churching of Women after Childbirth." Concilium 112 (1979): 63-72.

Vorgrimler, Herbert. Sacramental Theology. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Wangler, Thomas E. "The Birth of Americanism: 'Westward the Apocalyptic Candlestick'." The Harvard Theological Review 65, no. 3 (1972): 415-436.

______. "Catholic Religious Life in Boston in the Era of Cardinal O'Connell." In Catholic Boston: Studies in Religion and Community, 1870-1970, edited by Robert E. Sullivan and James M. O'Toole, 239-272. Boston: n.p., 1985.

______. "Americanist Beliefs and Papal Orthodoxy: 1884-1899." U.S. Catholic Historian 11, no. 3 (1993): 37-51.

Whelan, Michael D. "The Litany of Saints: Its Place in the Grammar of Liturgy." Worship 65, no. 3 (1991): 216-223.

White, Helen Constance. The Tudor Books of Private Devotion. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1951.

White, Linda, "Howley Family Papers, Coll-262", Archives and Special Collections, Queen Elizabeth II Library, Memorial University, St. John's, NL, http://collections.mun.ca/cdm/ref/collection/ead/id/261 (accessed January 8, 2015).

Wicker, Elmus. Banking Panics of the Gilded Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Wieck, Roger S. "Introduction." In Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life, edited by Roger S. Wieck, 27-32. New York: George Braziller, 1988.

Winship, Michael. "The National Book Trade System: Distribution and the Trade." In The Industrial Book, 1840-1880, edited by Scott E. Casper, Jeffrey D. Groves, Stephen W. Nissenbaum, Michael Winship, 3:117-130. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

298

______. "The Rise of the National Book Trade System in the United States." In Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880-1940, edited by Carl F. Kaestle, Janice A. Radway, 4:56-77. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Wister, Robert J. "The Establishment of the Apostolic Delegation in the United States of America: The Satolli Mission, 1892-1896." Hist.Eccl.D. diss., Pontificia Universitate Gregoriana, 1981.

______. "The First Apostolic Delegation." U.S. Catholic Historian 12, no. 2 (1994): 27-45.

Witczak, Michael G. "Prayer and Worship at St. Francis Seminary: A Sequicentennial Perspective, 1845-1995." In St. Francis Seminary: Sesquicentennial Essays, edited by Steven M. Avella, 76-103. St. Francis, WI: St. Francis Seminary, 1997.

Withey, Donald A. John Henry Newman: The Liturgy and the Breviary. Their Influence on His Life as an Anglican. London: Sheed & Ward, 1992.

Woods, Marjorie Curry, and Rita Copeland. "Classroom and Confession." In The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, edited by David Wallace, 376-406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Yarnold, Edward. "Church Orders." In The Study of Liturgy, edited by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold and Paul Bradshaw, 89-91. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

299