THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
A Manual of Prayers for the Use of the Catholic
Laity: A Neglected Catechetical Text of the Third
Plenary Council of Baltimore
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of the
School of Theology 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 Catholic
Laity: 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 bishops commissioned
a national prayer book 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 prayer book 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 books, and
episcopal decrees to address their weak theological content. To improve understanding of the
Church’s liturgy, 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 Missal,
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 sacraments to those in the Council of Trent’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 liturgical movement and the Second Vatican Council.
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., Reader
________________________________________
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 pastor’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 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................12 CONTEXT AND ORIGINS Catechesis and Catechisms.................................................................................................. 13 Catechesis and Prayer Books .............................................................................................. 16 Prayer Book Genres ............................................................................................................ 18 Prayer Book Reform in the United States ........................................................................... 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 PROMULGATION 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 ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS [ON THE MANUAL OF PRAYERS] APPENDIX FOUR ......................................................................................................................247 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The Sacraments in General ............................................................................................... 247 Baptism.............................................................................................................................. 250 Confirmation ..................................................................................................................... 255 Eucharist ............................................................................................................................ 258 Penance.............................................................................................................................. 268 Extreme Unction ............................................................................................................... 276 Matrimony ......................................................................................................................... 277 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................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 sacramentinstructions’ 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 Cincinnati
AANY
Archives of the Archdiocese of New York
AASPM
Archives of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis
ACUA
American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives
ADA
Archives of the Diocese 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 Kansas 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 prior 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 deacons. 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 Library, 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
collection. 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 Bishop Thomas
Costello, retired auxiliary bishop, arranged for my stay at Blessed Sacrament 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, Maryland, 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 Archbishop James Gibbons’s
1884 letter to Cincinnati Archbishop William Elder, documenting the first mention of a US
national prayer book. At the New York County Court Division of Old Records in Manhattan,
archivists Joseph Van Nostrand and Bruce Abrams helped me navigate the maze of nineteenthcentury 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 Rome, enabling me to research at the Congregation for the Evangelization of
Peoples and the Vatican Secret Archives where I obtained a trove of information.
I am greatly indebted to the Rev. Msgr. John Alesandro, canonist and priest 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 Latin 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) publishing 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 Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship 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 edition 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 liturgical book: the Martyrologium Romanum or Roman Martyrology.
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, 9991001, 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 sacramentals, 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 psalms and canticles 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, Pope 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 encyclical Mediator Dei. The
Second Vatican Council “took an important doctrinal step forward,” by justifying comprehensive
liturgical participation on the universal priesthood 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 must 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 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, 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. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 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 Dioceses 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, Breviary, 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 parishes, 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 Mass, and all the sacraments except Holy Orders, 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 (Roman Missal), Breviarium Romanum: Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini
Restitutum (Roman Breviary), and Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual).
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 Common 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-nineteenthcentury 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 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); 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
Prelate (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 Book of
Common Prayer 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 salvation 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 monk, 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 Catholic Devotions 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 Pope Pius X, ed. Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (Washington, DC: Confraternity
of Christian Doctrine, 1946), 145-148; William Busch, "From Other Times: The Voice of a Plenary Council," Orate
Fratres 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 parish priests 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 official 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 vernacular translation of the Roman liturgical books. Keith F. Pecklers, Dynamic Equivalence: The
Living Language of Christian Worship (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 creed and the Catholic liturgy.”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 nonliturgical 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 thirteenthcentury Book of Hours 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 Catholic
spirituality, 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 homilies.
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 Catholic Church (Vatican City: 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 Abbey 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 Didache, 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 Christianity 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 Communion once a year, thereby
increasing priests’ ministering the sacrament of penance, the spread of penitential manuals, and
spurred the ministry of the newly-formed mendicant religious orders (Franciscans and
Dominicans) in popular preaching and confession. Pastors 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 Altars: 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 Gospel’s two commandments, seven works of mercy, seven virtues, seven
deadly sins, 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 the Lord’s Prayer and Hail Mary.
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 sixteenthcentury catechisms to the late medieval practice centered on the Creed (doctrine), the Ten
Commandments (moral living), and the Lord’s Prayer (prayer). In response 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 Jesus 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 cathedral prayer, a college of
presbyters or canons presided at the services.17
Concurrently a second monastic form of prayer emerged. Since monks 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 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), 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 canonical hours, 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 Virgin.19
Revealing their heritage in the medieval Psalter, the horae supplemented the Marian office with
the seven Penitential Psalms, Litany of the Saints, the fifteen Gradual 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 mendicant orders 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 literacy” 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 Reading Habits of the Later Middle Ages," 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 rubrics 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 passion of Jesus 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 indulgences 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 Bible 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 midsixteenth century.31
During the English Reformation, Protestant and Catholic primers appeared. Reformed
primers excluded obvious Catholic features such as saints, Marian devotions, 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 Church of England 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 volume, 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 (Philadelphia: 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 Wisconsin 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 week,”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 sacramental
virtues. The gifts of the Holy Ghost. The fruits of the Holy Ghost. The precepts of charity. The precepts of the
church. The spiritual works of mercy. The corporal 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 (postTridentine 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 Latin Mass. 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 Catholic culture. 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 Papal States. 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 nonCatholics: 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
agenda 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 Ireland 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 antiCatholicism 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 History of the Papacy 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 Rosary 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 printing of the simple English Benediction 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 preface 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 missionary 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 Englishspeaking 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 officials 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, confraternities 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. Dublin 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 proper.
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 MissionBook sustained the parish mission experience, which the Redemptorists 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 nineteenthcentury 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 Redeemer, 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 ecclesiastical province
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 nationstates 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 decree 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 Roman Rite 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 Ordinary, 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 dicastery
(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 Saint 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
litanies, non-sanctioned prayers especially to saints, hymns, catechetical text, and unauthorized
Roman Missal translations. While approving the Litany of the Saints 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, rector 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 Immaculate Conception 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 style—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, "Martin John 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 imprimatur 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. Paul the Apostle 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 tract. 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 canon 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, John Gilmary Shea, 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 brother 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 (Milwaukee:
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 consultors, 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, John Ireland 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 Michael Corrigan 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 weeks 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 Patrick Feehan 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 Synods and Councils, AAB, 64 (art. 243).
99. The Relationes included a report from Archbishop Michael Heiss 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.” Censures 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 pulpit 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,” liturgies 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 textbooks. 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
Photo courtesy of American Catholic
History Research Center and University
Archives (ACUA).
published without submitting it to Propaganda for review,
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 don’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 superior 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 Catholic Encyclopedia, (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 Trinity College, in Hartford,
Connecticut, in 1873. Baptized Methodist, he became
Episcopalian at Trinity. Woodman studied for the
Figure 2. Rev. Clarence Eugene Woodman.
Photo courtesy of Paulist Fathers Archives,
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 New York City.127
While studying for the ministry, John Henry Newman and the Oxford movement
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 funeral 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 oratory.” 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, 18451995," 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
textbook 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 Stations of the Cross 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 elevation to the
cardinalate and convening of a diocesan synod 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 prelates
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, vicar general of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, submitted a memorial 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 coadjutor-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 pallium, 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, James Ryan, 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).
Internet Archive (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 Marriage,
miscellaneous blessings (e.g., Blessing of a House or of Pilgrims), and processions (e.g., Palm
Sunday Procession).
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 Roman Pontifical. 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 readings 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 Holy Week 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 Vespers 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 Prime 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 Compline,
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
Table of Contents: Manual of Prayers
Section
Page
Reference Calendar
1
Movable Feasts, Tables of
14
Days of Obligation and Devotion
16
Abridgment of Christian Doctrine
20
Christian Faith and Practice
25
Daily
Morning Prayers (Prime)
37
prayers
Another Form
51
Acts of Faith, Hope, etc.
53
Angelus, etc.
55
Grace before and after Meals
58
Litanies of the Holy Name and of Loreto
60
Evening Prayers (Compline)
69
Another Form
81
Weekly
Devotions for Mass
89
services
Manner of Serving Mass
106
Blessing of Water and Asperges
109
Ordinary of the Mass
114
The Te Deum, etc.
160
Vespers
178
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
220
Chapter one (25% of book)
Roman (%)a
M
84
100
B
R
US
3b
T
87
100
8c
8
100
100
86
86
99
99
8
8
39
88
24
61
3d
14 13
91
28
28
6
100
91
52
2e 93
83f 83
2 64
a
The 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.
b
Approved US changes (3%) to the Roman Calendar.
c
Lay Baptism (8%) from the Roman Ritual.
d
The “Order of Administration of Holy Communion” for the congregation (3%) from the Roman Ritual.
e
Rubrics (2%) from US Ceremonial.
f
US Ceremonial defines Benediction’s rubrics and prayers.
attractive for lay prayer. Prime, following the Breviary’s early morning offices of Matins 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, Canticle of Simeon, and prayers, concluding with a seasonal
Marian hymn (such as Alma Redemptoris Mater or Salve Regina), versicle, response, and collect.
Woodman promoted, as the Second Plenary Council of 1866 recommended, the only
papal-approved devotional litanies, the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus 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 shrine of the reputed home of Annunciation 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 Sacred Heart (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 Collects—the
liturgical prayer of the priest in the Mass of the Catechumens.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 Kyrie 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 Altar-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
R
T
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
Scapular (with form of Investing)
383
95
95
Chapter two (20% of book)
20
22
42
a
See table 1, note a.
The Roman Ritual’s Form of Absolution is included within Devotions for Confession.
b
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 Candlemas and Ash Wednesday. 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 Christmas and before Lent, commemorated the Holy Family’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 Easter season. While Communion simply required proper
intention and the absence of mortal sin, 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 Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost 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 Votive Mass,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 John Neumann 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 Good Friday.40 The Seven [Last] Words upon the Cross, a devotion with twelfthcentury origins and based upon seven phrases from three gospels 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, scapulars 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 Our Lady of Mount Carmel.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 New Testament 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 Marriages 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
Section
Page
The Sacraments in General
390
Initiation Holy Baptism
393
Reception of Converts
412
Confirmation
418
Family
Matrimony—The Ceremony
436
Nuptial Mass
440
Mixed Marriages
449
Churching of Women
454
Sickness/ Devotions for the Sick
459
Death
Communion of the Sick
475
Extreme Unction
482
Visitation of the Sick
494
Last Indulgence
501
Recommendation of a Soul
511
Burial of the Dead, Adults
541
Infants
587
Chapter three (25% of book)
M
Roman (%)a
B R
USb
60
87
60
100
32
34
100
36
87
60
70
100
49
76
16
60
39
60
70
100
49
76
100
87
66
100
32c
29
5
10
36
18
27
9
66
14
T
4
a
See table 1, note a.
b
Column contains rites from the US Roman Ritual Supplement.
c
Rite 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, 4951.
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 Viaticum 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, Recommendation 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 Lauds, and Mass for the Dead. Accommodating late nineteenth-century funeral
customs, he disregarded the Ritual’s opening rubric 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
Section
Page M
Hymns and Sequences
599 15
Collects, Epistles and Gospels
665 100
Chapter four (30% of book)
80
a
Roman (%)a
B
R
US
74
17
T
89
100
97
See table 1, note a.
57. Sicard, 237-238; Richard Rutherford and Tony Barr, The Death of a Christian: The Order of Christian
Funerals, Rev. ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 94-95, 102.
58. Rutherford and Barr, 108.
93
Breviary except for a small set of Advent, 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
Breviary
Ritual/Pontifical
Approved US changes
Total
37%
16%
16%
1%
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 antiphons 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 papal infallibility, 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 libraries."; 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 Introit, Collect, Epistle,
Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, 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
One
Days of Obligation and Devotionc
Abridgment of Christian Doctrine
Christian Faith and Practice
Devotions for Massd
Vespers
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
Two
The Seven Penitential Psalms
Devotions for Confessione
Devotions for Communionf
Visits to the Blessed Sacrament
Way of the Cross
Rosary (with form of Blessing)
Scapular (with form of Blessing)
Three
The Sacraments in General
Holy Baptismg
Confirmation
Matrimony—The Ceremony
Devotions for the Sickh
Communion of the Sick
Extreme Unction
Last Indulgence
Instructions (9% of book)
a
GM % (GOS %)b
100
81 (68)
53 (46)
100
35
41 (35)
100
88
[100]i
100
100 (58)
[100]46j
36 (31)
57
100
100
59 (24)
The section in the Manual’s Table of Contents. Many instructions have no separate
heading. Different or multiple headings are noted below.
b
Except 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.
c
On Fasting and Abstinence.
d
What 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.
e
On the Sacrament of Penance, Considerations to Excite Confession, Examination of
Conscience, Directions for Confession, and After Confession.
f
Instructions for Holy Communion and Direction of Intention.
g
Explanation of the Ceremonies.
h
Rules 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 Preces 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 sermon. 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 Bibles, 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 DouayRheims 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 John Hughes 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 Vulgate,
St. Jerome’s fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, and maintained lineage with
79. Pius VIII’s encyclical Traditi Humilitati, issued in May 1829, denounced vernacular translations of the Bible,
except those with commentary from the church fathers 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 biblical studies—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 Introits. 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, lxiilxiii.
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 Acts of the Apostles 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 missals 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 apostolic constitution, 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 seventyfive 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 typesetting and electrotyping, we have paid large sums of
money for other expenses, such as editing, 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 Coadjutor Bishop 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 highquality 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," The Catholic
Review, 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 bookselling, 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 (mid1889 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 Catholic
School 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, 591592; 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," The New York Times, 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 John Lancaster Spalding 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 Cathedrals 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
imprimaturs.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 censure.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 wellknown 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 exJesuit, 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 Kentucky, 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 farreaching 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, Illinois, and a Paulist, but a public conflict ensued between
Lambert and Rochester Bishop Bernard McQuaid.
87. Meagher to Corrigan, April 30, 1892, Consultor'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 Henry Gabriels 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 pardon 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. 119122, 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: Woodstock College, 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 prayerbook 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 Brooklyn.
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 John Murphy Farley 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, 4952.
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): 12930; Jas. L. Meagher, 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).
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 Last Supper (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 twentyeight 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 Newman Center 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
canon law 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. Eugenio Corecco, 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, sacramentaries, 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), 13.
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 wine, 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," The Jurist 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 baptisms,
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 liturgicalcatechetical 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 Pope Pius V, 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
Balt. Catechism
Manual of Prayers
a
b
Part 2, Chapter
TOC
Subheading
Page
Lesson
Sacraments in General
1
Sacraments in
General
390
13
Baptism
2
Holy Baptism
Explanation of the
Ceremonies
393
14
Confirmation
3
Confirmation
Instructions
The Ceremonies
Explained
418
420
15-16
Eucharist
4
Devotions for
Mass
What the Mass Is,
for What End It Is
to Be Offered
Of the Ceremony of
Mass
84
22-24
Devotions for
Communion
86
On the Manner of
Hearing Mass
89
Instructions for
Holy Communion
302
325
Penance
5
Devotions for
Confession
On the Sacrament
of Penance
271
Considerations to
Excite Confession
277
Examination of
Conscience
278
Directions for
Confession
285
17-21
After Confession
288
Extreme Unction
6
Extreme Unction
482
Matrimony
8
Matrimony
Instructions
431
a
The
section
in
the
Manual’s
Table
of
Contents.
b
The subheading for the sacrament’s instruction, some of which have no separate heading.
25
26
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 justification, the council asserted the active role of
35. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Beatitude: A Commentary on St. Thomas' Theological Summa, Ia IIae, qq. 154, 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. 10914, trans. Dominican Nuns (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, English missal 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 Vestments, Ceremonies, etc.,
Appertaining to the Holy Sacrifice 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 Trinitarian formula, while not
requiring other gestures, acts, or prayers. Similarly, the bishop’s anointing of a confirmand’s
forehead and pronouncing the words of consecration 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, incense, 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 ex opere operato 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 chrism 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 Satan 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 disciple. 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 kiss of peace, representing the fullness of grace the sacrament
confers surpassing all understanding.78 The Roman Catechism recommends bishops administer
Confirmation on Pentecost—the solemnity 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 venial sin” 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, crucifix, genuflection, 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 Act of Contrition. It recommends kneeling, making the sign
of the cross, 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, Confiteor, 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 sanctification 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 Inquisition
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 twentiethcentury 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, abbot 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 sacred mysteries. 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 Belgium 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 popular piety,” 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 Benedictines 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 apostolate.”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 twentiethcentury 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 Anglicanism 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 betterregarded 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 Curia 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 Nebraska, 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 eightynine, 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 twentyfive 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
hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first-above written.
[SEAL] 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 merit, 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
a
145-163 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 1-32).
Lesson 13, On the Sacraments in General, 24-26.
c
Introduction to the Sacraments in General, 390-392.
b
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
difference between the
Figure 10. Focus of Catechesis for the Sacraments in General
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 fountainhead, 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
Administration
1-2, 22, 41, 77
Name/Definition
3-5
Nature
6-16, 17-19
Institution
20-21
Minister
23-25
Effects
42-58
Necessity
31-34, 35-37
Disposition-Sponsors
26-30
Disposition
38-40
Ceremonies
59-75, 76
a
164-197 (pt. 2, ch. 1, art. 1-77).
b
Lesson 14, On Baptism, 26-28.
c
Explanation of the Ceremonies, 393-396.
250
BCb
Manualc
152
156-161
155
153
154
164-165
162-163
1-44
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 surplice, 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 stole, 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 divine grace,
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 body of Christ, 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
BCb
RC Framework
RCa
Administration
1
Name/Definition
2
166
Nature
3-5, 7-12
169-170
Institution
6
Minister
13-15
167
Effects
20-23a
176-186
Necessity
16-17
175
Disposition
18-190
173-174
Ceremonies
23b-26
168, 171-172
Manualc
1-2
12-15
3
4-5a
5b-11
16-19
a
198-209 (pt. 2, ch. 3, art. 1-26).
Lessons 15-16, On Confirmation, 28-29; On the Gifts and Fruits of the
Holy Ghost, 30-31.
c
Instructions, 418-420; The Ceremonies Explained, 420-421.
b
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 ordinance.
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 judgmentseat 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 rise up 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
Administration
1, 25, 47
65-66, 69
Name/Definition
3-6
Nature (Sacrament)
7-24, 26-46
Nature (Sacrifice)
70-80
Institution
2
Minister
67-68
Effects
48-54
Necessity
59-61
Disposition (Communion)
55-58
62-64
Disposition (Mass)
Ceremonies
81
BCb
238
242-248
262-268
239-241
249-250
251-253
259-260
254-258
261
269-270
Manualc
21c, 57-58
63-66
1-10, 12-23
11, 59-61
62
67-73
74-82
83-122
50-56
24-49
a
210-254 (pt. 2, ch. 4, art. 1-81).
Lessons 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.
c
What 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.
b
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 Sacrifices:
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 Blood of Christ could wash away sins.
5. Hence, St. Paul says (Heb. x. 5), quoting from the 39th Psalm: Sacrifice and oblation
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 veils, 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 commemoration 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 Holy Water at the
entrance 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 Everblessed 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 Amice 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 Alb represents the white garment with which He was vested by Herod.
39. The Girdle, Maniple, and Stole represent the cords and bands with which He was
bound in the different stages of His Passion.
40. The Chasuble, or outward Vestment, represents the purple 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 Tonsure, 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 martyrs, and on the
Sundays in Eastertide; 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 Solemn Mass.
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 Canon of the Mass 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 Transubstantiation) 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 Purgatory 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
Administration
1, 58-61, 79
Name/Definition
2-3
Nature
7-24, 26-46
Nature (Contrition)
23-28
Nature (Confession)
37-38
Nature (Satisfaction)
62-70
Institution
Minister
Effects
Necessity
Disposition (Contrition)
Disposition (Confession)
Disposition (Satisfaction)
Ceremonies
39-40
16, 41, 54-57
18-19, 71-72
20, 36
43-45, 53
29-35
46-52
73-78
15, 17, 42
BCb
187
188
195-207
208
218-220
231-236
189-190
191-194
209-217
221-223, 237
224-230
Manualc
1-2
3-5
6
9-15
7-8
16-70
75-82
87-94
71-74
83-86
a
255-296 (pt. 2, ch. 5, art. 1-79).
Lessons 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.
c
On the Sacrament of Penance, 271-272; Considerations to Excite Confession, 277278; Examination of Conscience, 278-282; Directions for Confession, 285-286;
After Confession, 288.
b
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 divine mercy.
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 faultsUnreasonable 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
Administration
1, 9, 11
Name/Definition
2-3
Nature
4-7a, 10
Institution
8
Minister
13
Effects
14-16
Necessity
Disposition
12
Ceremonies
7b
BCb
272-273
271
Manualc
2
3-4, 6-7
1
277
274-275
5
276
8
a
297-306 (pt. 2, ch. 6, art. 1-16).
Lesson 25: On Extreme Unction and Holy Orders.
c
[No Title], 482.
b
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
Administration
1
Name/Definition
2-3
282
Nature
4-9, 11, 16-21
284, 287
Institution
10, 15
283
Minister
Effects
12-14, 23-25
285
Necessity
Disposition
22, 26-27
286, 288-291
30-34
Ceremonies
28-29
Manualc
2-4, 6-7
1, 5
8-12
18-28
13-17
a
327-343 (pt. 2, ch. 8, art. 1-34).
Lesson 26: On Matrimony.
c
Instructions, 431.
b
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
to the dignity of a Sacrament.
Figure 16. Focus of Catechesis for Matrimony
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): 273313.
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, 17771880. 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): 208223.
________. 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, 1:89111. 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): 613614.
"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): 591596.
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, 131. 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): 364370.
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. 17631815. 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, 130. 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