Header image: Detail from The First Communion, Dieppe, 1878. By Philip Richard Morris. Public domain.

This article was first published on September 24 2024.

A shorter version of this article was originally presented as a paper on September 22, 2023, as part of the annual conference of the Society for Catholic Liturgy at the University of St. Thomas, MN. The title of the conference was: “Remain in me: Liturgical Formation and the Eucharistic Revival.” A revised version of the paper was subsequently printed in Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal. This article is a substantially expanded version of the original paper and Antiphon article.

This article explores the history of vernacular congregational participation at Mass between 1861 and 1961. Contrary to popular narratives, this research reveals that vernacular recitation of the Mass texts—aloud and in common by the congregation during the celebration of the liturgy—far predates the Second Vatican Council. A variety of these vernacular Mass methods were published with official approval in prayer-books and hand missals for the laity. This article will introduce and survey these methods, assess their effectiveness, and suggest what we might learn from them in order to promote authentic liturgical formation in our current age.

Dialogue Mass, Children’s Mass, vernacular liturgy, liturgical formation, Eucharistic Revival, Liturgical Movement, Catholic Education

In June 2022, Pope Francis issued an Apostolic Letter titled Desiderio Desideravi: On the Liturgical Formation of the People of God. The letter extensively quotes Romano Guardini, a key figure in the pre-conciliar Liturgical Movement, and emphasizes “[t]he need for a serious and vital liturgical formation.”[1] The letter argues that such liturgical formation is needed to address the dire spiritual challenges of the modern era, namely that many people today do not understand the liturgy, do not know how to participate in the liturgy, and do not have their lives transformed by the liturgy.

Just two weeks prior to the publication of this letter, the bishops of the United States launched the National Eucharistic Revival, a multi-year effort of catechesis, prayer, and pilgrimage culminating in the first nationwide Eucharistic Congress since 1941. The Revival project—which was praised by the pope—hopes to respond to the spiritual crisis of the modern day by inspiring an increase of faith in the Eucharist and a transformed understanding of, and participation in, the liturgy.[2] Both of these developments are examples of a growing recognition that the modern Church is not achieving effective, transformative liturgical formation today—and moreover that it has been failing to do so for some time. Deeply concerning statistics regarding the collapse in sacramental participation, Mass attendance in free fall, and a shocking lack of catechesis are by now well known and treated in detail elsewhere. In general, the situation is aptly summarized by Bishop Robert Barron:

As referenced by Barron and Pope Francis in Desiderio Desideravi, those involved in the Liturgical Movement were keenly focused on the liturgical formation of the laity in the decades before the Second Vatican Council. Their goals seem remarkably similar to those expressed in our own day: they wanted to re-sanctify Sunday Mass, encourage a Catholic revival and Eucharistic movement, and assist the laity in achieving full, active, perfect assistance at Mass.[4]

In pursuit of those goals, a number of pioneering priests and educators devised methods of liturgical formation and catechesis. Some were incorporated into textbooks for use in the classroom. Others were printed in pamphlets or books for individual study. But there were also noteworthy methods of liturgical formation that were designed for use by the congregation during the celebration of the liturgy itself.

These methods attempted to produce transformative liturgical formation via active liturgical participation. Specifically, they employed extraordinary amounts of vernacular vocal participation by the laity during the liturgy. Congregations using these methods would sing vernacular hymns, listen to narrated commentary, and recite vernacular prayers—aloud and in common—while the Mass was offered in Latin by the celebrant. 

The recited prayers were not just pious devotions or catechetical material. Rather, these methods were composed of adaptations and even verbatim translations of the texts of the Roman Missal. This allowed the congregation to read, hear, and corporately recite significant portions of the Mass. In short, these were methods of actively participating in the Mass in the vernacular and according to the liturgical texts. Such methods were far more than mere instructional exercises; they facilitated direct and active liturgical participation of the laity in ways that were strikingly similar to modern vernacular worship.

It is clear that these methods are different from the modern post-conciliar rites, involving as they did the congregation reciting liturgical texts in English largely in parallel to, but coordinated with, the celebrant saying the Mass in Latin at the altar. Nevertheless it must be emphasized that from the perspective of the people in the pews, they were experiencing what can only be described as real vernacular liturgical worship.

These methods of liturgical-formation-through-liturgical-participation were significant during their time and practiced throughout the English-speaking world before the Second Vatican Council but have received hardly any detailed study.[5] For this reason they are almost totally forgotten today. This has contributed to widespread popular and academic misconception about what liturgical practice and lay participation was like during these years.

In the course of my research into the history of hand missals for the laity, I have discovered and cataloged many different hand missals and prayer books that contained these now-forgotten methods for vernacular congregational participation at Mass. I have identified at least three distinct genres of these methods: the Children’s Mass, the Children’s Dialog Mass, and the English Dialog Mass. With respect to English-language works, which are the focus of this article, I have found at least sixty-nine book titles containing one or more of these methods, published in a combined total of at least 329 editions between 1861 and 1961.

In this article, I will offer a survey of just a handful of these titles and their English vernacular methods for active participation in the liturgy. I will then examine what contemporary figures thought of these methods, how they assessed their success or failure, and what we can learn from these methods in order to promote successful liturgical formation in our current age.[6]

In the modern era, vernacular congregational participation in the Mass began much earlier than is commonly supposed. In English-speaking lands, such methods originally grew out of the innovative ministry for children established by John Furniss, C.SS.R. in the middle of the nineteenth century.[7]

Furniss began his work for children shortly after huge numbers of Irish Catholics emigrated to England as a result of the Great Famine. The resources of the Catholic Church in Great Britain were wholly insufficient to deal with the “vast multitude of the faithful, very poor and helpless” who quickly overwhelmed the existing network of priests, chapels, and schools.[8] Furniss was greatly distressed by the plight of these Irish children, many of whom lived in crippling poverty, were often forced to work from a very young age, and had almost no ability to receive religious instruction or the sacraments.

In 1851, Furniss began to adapt the venerable custom of parochial or general missions (one of the defining apostolates of his Redemptorist Order) to address the needs of these children. He developed a type of mission exclusively for children that was specifically designed to catechize them quickly, instruct them about the Mass, and allow them to make their first confessions and first communions during the course of the mission.[9] These missions were quite successful, in high demand, and often attended by hundreds or thousands of children at a time. 

As part of his Children’s missions, Furniss developed an innovative approach to conducting Mass for children that involved the extensive use of vernacular hymns, vernacular prayers recited in common, and running narration. This vernacular “Children’s Mass” centered on a series of English quasi-liturgical hymns that corresponded to the different liturgical actions and were related to the texts of the missal. With Furniss acting as a “leader” or “conductor,” these hymns were sung by the congregation in parallel to the priest celebrating the Mass in Latin at the altar. 

At the appropriate parts of the Mass, for example, the whole congregation would sing the opening sign of the cross, followed by singing their intention of Offering of the Holy Mass for the Four Ends. They sang an act of contrition, a hymn specific to the reading of the Gospel, and the creed in English. They would sing a series of specific hymns during the canon, more hymns immediately before the consecration and at the elevation, and so on down to the Last Gospel. They would also recite various prayers together in English, including the Our Father.

Fig. 1 – Example pages from the vernacular Mass methods by Rev. John Furniss, CSSR as printed in The Sunday School or Catechism (Dublin: Richardson & Son, 1861). Photo created by the author via Google Books scans.

Furniss performed these Children’s Masses during his missions for a decade with local ecclesiastical approval. Due to their widespread popularity, in 1861 he published his methods and music in several books simultaneously: The Sunday School or Catechism, the Hymn Book for Sunday School or Catechism, and the Hand Book for the Sunday School Teacher.

In 1862, the Furniss Children’s Mass method was included in the best-selling Crown of Jesus prayer-book and hymnal series. The Crown of Jesus received not only the approval and recommendation of all the archbishops of Great Britain and Ireland, but also the approval and blessing of the pope himself and went through eleven editions in just four years.[10] It was sold in English-speaking countries around the world and was copied and emulated by dozens of other publications.[11]

These Furniss methods are thus both the origins and the definitive example of what I have classified as the English “Children’s Mass” genre of vernacular Mass methods. I define this genre as methods of liturgical formation, participation, and catechesis designed for children whereby specific English hymns were sung during specific liturgical actions of the Mass, along with spoken commentary and unison vocal vernacular prayers. 

Here it is important to discuss the term “children’s Mass” in general. At the most basic level, a “children’s Mass” (as a generic term) was simply a specific Mass time designated for children to attend. These were usually only for children, with parents or other adults excluded, and often involved some customs or concessions tailored to the attending children. Such children’s Masses—on Sundays, feast days, and school days alike—were a normal part of parish life throughout the world and existed from before 1850 until after the Second Vatican Council. 

The simple mention of a “children’s Mass” in the historical record without any other additional detail, therefore, does not in itself necessarily mean that any special vernacular methods of liturgical participation were used. But the universal institution of dedicated children’s Masses allowed for the rapid spread of these vernacular Mass practices in the years which followed the publication of Furniss’s methods.

These vernacular Children’s Masses were extremely popular. Several noteworthy editions of this genre were even commissioned or promoted by bishops, archbishops, and cardinals around the world as part of their vision for standardized or “official” prayer books and hymnals in their territories. One such example is The Australian Catholic Hymn Book, first published in 1884 and promoted by Archbishop of Sydney Patrick Moran and the other bishops of New South Wales.[12] The hymn book featured one of the Furniss methods for the Children’s Mass and was widely used throughout Australia. It was published in more than thirteen editions and remained in print until at least 1929.

Fig. 2a – Example pages of the Furniss vernacular Mass method as printed in The Australian Catholic Hymn Book, 5th ed. (Sydney: Louise Gille & Co., sd [1890s?]). Photo courtesy of the State Library of New South Wales.

Fig. 2b – Example pages of the Furniss vernacular Mass method as printed in The Australian Catholic Hymn Book, 5th ed. (Sydney: Louise Gille & Co., sd [1890s?]). Photo courtesy of the State Library of New South Wales.

I have identified at least thirty-one prayer book or hymnal titles that contain methods of this Children’s Mass genre of vernacular Mass participation, published in at least 138 total editions between 1861 and 1960. More than 130 of these editions were published before 1940 and a majority of these works (nineteen of thirty-one titles) utilized the Furniss method in some form, in some cases shortening or expanding upon the original.[13]

Just nine years after the first publication of Furniss’s methods in England, a new and more liturgically advanced style of English Children’s Mass was developed in America. Designed for use at the pioneering Paulist Sunday School in New York City established by Isaac Hecker, this method was titled “Prayers and Exercises for the Children’s Mass” and published in Hymns and Songs for Catholic Children in April 1870.[14] 

The method involved a non-celebrant priest or “reader” who led the congregation in the communal recitation of parts of the missal in English while the Mass was underway. These included the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Gospel reading, the creed, the Our Father, and the Agnus Dei, and later expanded to include other portions of the missal like the priest’s offertory prayers.[15]

Fig. 3a – Example pages of the Paulist vernacular Mass method as printed in Hymns and Prayers for Catholic Children: With a Sodality Office and Prayers and Exercises for the Children’s Mass (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1870). Photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame Library.

Fig. 3b – Example pages of the Paulist vernacular Mass method as printed in Hymns and Prayers for Catholic Children: With a Sodality Office and Prayers and Exercises for the Children’s Mass (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1870). Photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame Library.

This marked the start of a new chapter in the story of liturgical formation via vernacular liturgical participation. The Paulist method of 1870 was the first of a new category of Children’s Masses, which I have labeled “Children’s Dialog Masses.” I define this genre as methods of liturgical formation, participation, and catechesis designed for children whereby the congregation recited the texts of the Mass (or a paraphrase) aloud and in common in the vernacular, often facilitated by a second priest or other “reader.”

Unlike the original type established by Furniss, characterized by the continuous singing of hymns and narration, this second genre featured a new emphasis on call-and-response dialogue and vocal communal recitation of texts drawn from the missal. I have identified at least twenty-four prayer book titles that contain these methods, published in at least ninety-five total editions between 1870 and 1959. More than ninety of these editions were published before 1950.

Eight years after the Paulist “Prayers and Exercises,” Benziger Brothers of New York released Prayers for the Children of Catholic Schools. The prayer book included a remarkable feature: a method of “Mass in Versicles and Responses.” The book’s preface was almost entirely dedicated to introducing and explaining the Children’s Mass method:

This method was an English adaptation of certain texts of the Roman Missal for children, designed to be read aloud in an alternating fashion by the congregation during the celebration of the Mass. This included spoken recitation of English prayers–which in some cases were essentially direct translations of the missal–during the offertory, the preface, and even the canon.

Fig. 4a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method printed in Prayers for the Children of Catholic Schools (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1878). Photo courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society.

Fig. 4b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method printed in Prayers for the Children of Catholic Schools (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1878). Photo courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society.

Benziger Brothers were authorized printers to the Holy See and the largest and most respected national Catholic publishing house; the book featured the imprimatur of Cardinal John McCloskey, Archbishop of New York; and it remained in print for at least a decade. Because of this, the “Versicles and Responses” concept quickly spread nationwide and would be adapted and copied by many other titles and editions.

One such adaptation was made by Bonaventure Hammer, O.S.F.[17] Published in Green Bay, Wisconsin around 1892, his Manna: Prayers and Instructions for Catholics also featured a shorter “Mass in Versicles and Responses” which had been inspired by the original Benziger text. Some idea of the popularity of this method can be gleaned by looking at sales figures. By 1896, at least 145,000 copies of the book had been printed. To put this number into perspective, in the Diocese of Green Bay in 1896 there were just 10,906 pupils in Catholic schools and a total Catholic population of 125,000.[18]

This same method of “Mass in Versicles and Responses” by Hammer would remain in use for decades and was published (often without attribution) in many different prayer books under a variety of titles. Between 1892 and 1927, at least 1,629,000 copies of books containing this method were printed and sold by the largest Catholic publishing houses and stores throughout the nation.[19]

Fig. 5a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Bonaventure Hammer, OSF as printed in Manna: Prayers and Instructions for Catholics (Green Bay: Wink & Kaster, 1896). Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 5b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Bonaventure Hammer, OSF as printed in Manna: Prayers and Instructions for Catholics (Green Bay: Wink & Kaster, 1896). Photo courtesy of the author.

In 1899, San Francisco’s legendary Catholic education pioneer Peter C. Yorke first published his own advanced version of the vernacular Children’s Dialog Mass.[20] Yorke’s method involved the communal, dialogued recitation of significant amounts of the texts of the Roman Missal—direct and unabridged translations, not paraphrases or quasi-liturgical substitutes.  At the National Catholic Educational Association’s annual convention in 1917, Yorke gave an extensive lecture in which he described his Children’s Dialog Mass. His commentary is worth quoting at some length as it includes details that supplement his printed booklets and helps to explain how the method was conducted:

Yorke spent an extraordinary amount of time and energy on his Children’s Masses and soon became internationally known for his work. As early as 1903, detailed descriptions of Yorke’s method were featured in Catholic newspapers and education journals around the world.[22] Yorke was one of the founders of the National Catholic Educational Association, served as its vice president for seven years, and regularly promoted his Children’s Mass through the organization. By 1913, Yorke’s Children’s Mass booklet had gone through eight editions and by 1921 had reached its eighteenth.

Fig. 6a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Peter C. Yorke as printed in Hymns and Prayers for the Children’s Mass, 8th ed. (San Francisco: The Text Book Publishing Co., 1913). Photo courtesy of Catholic University of America Library.

Fig. 6b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Peter C. Yorke as printed in Hymns and Prayers for the Children’s Mass, 8th ed. (San Francisco: The Text Book Publishing Co., 1913). Photo courtesy of Catholic University of America Library.

Yorke’s was not the only method of Children’s Dialog Mass to enjoy world-wide acclaim. First published in 1908, Prayers at Mass for School Children by Edward P. Graham of Cleveland, Ohio continued the concept of alternating vernacular dialogue in parallel to the priest at the altar.[23] It was significantly shorter and simpler than Yorke’s method, and within just ten years of publication it was in use throughout the world. In the words of an account in Our Sunday Visitor in 1918:

Fig. 7a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Edward P. Graham as printed in Prayers at Mass for School Children, 11th ed. (Canton: St. John’s Church, sd [1930s]). Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 7b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Edward P. Graham as printed in Prayers at Mass for School Children, 11th ed. (Canton: St. John’s Church, sd [1930s]). Photo courtesy of the author.

Many forms of the vernacular Children’s Dialog Mass published around this time began to hew more closely to the text of the Roman Missal and increase the amount of text corporately recited by the congregation. This reflected an increasing emphasis on the importance of using the verbatim texts of the Mass as the foundation for congregational participation and vernacular vocal prayer. 

One noteworthy method from these years was The Garland of Praise: Spiritual Songs for Use in the Catholic Church with Prayers for Mass and Latin Hymns, published by Rev. John Rothensteiner in 1921 with the imprimatur of John Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis.[25] Garland of Praise was primarily a hymnal but also featured two different vernacular Mass methods which involved the corporate vocal recitation of various missal texts by the congregation or a narrator– including the Offertory, the Preface, the Canon, and even the words of consecration! They also contained pre-selected English hymns and Ordinary mass parts which were interspersed throughout texts at various points in the liturgy. 

In creating The Garland of Praise, Rothensteiner hoped to synthesize and transmit the songs and customs of the German-speaking community into English for the new, modern generation.[26] It would remain in print until at least 1942 in at least eight editions, and was so popular that excerpts were immediately included in several different prayer books published around the country.[27]

Fig. 8a – Example pages from the first vernacular Mass method by Rev. John Rothensteiner as printed in The Garland of Praise, 8th ed. (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Co., 1942). Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 8b – Example pages from the second vernacular Mass method by Rev. John Rothensteiner as printed in The Garland of Praise, 8th ed. (St. Louis:  B. Herder Book Co., 1942). Photo courtesy of the author.

It could be said that the pinnacle of English Children’s Dialog Mass methods was reached with the publication of Dom Gaspar Lefebvre’s Child’s Daily Missal in 1929.[28] Building upon the global success of his landmark original hand missal published in the early 1920s, Lefebvre’s missal for children was an extraordinary and unparalleled achievement. The Child’s Daily Missal was the first and (to my knowledge) only children’s missal ever produced which was a true daily missal.[29] It was lavishly illustrated with 300 original liturgical drawings, colored according to the liturgical calendar, and featured all the texts of the Roman Missal for every day of the year re-written and adapted into simpler language for children.

The Child’s Daily Missal also contained a vernacular Children’s Dialog Mass method, titled “Vernacular Prayers said aloud during Mass.” This method utilized a ‘reader’ who led the congregation in guided recitation of essentially every part from the Roman Missal, all lightly adapted (like the rest of the book) into slightly simpler language but remaining closely aligned to the original liturgical text. Lefebvre’s missal for children sold throughout the world and remained in print until at least 1948.[30]

Fig. 9a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre as printed in The Child’s Daily Missal [UK edition] (Lophem-near-Brugess: Liturgical Apostolate–St. Andrew’s Abbey, 1929). Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 9b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre as printed in The Child’s Daily Missal [UK edition] (Lophem-near-Brugess: Liturgical Apostolate–St. Andrew’s Abbey, 1929). Photo courtesy of the author.

As the number and variety of Children’s Dialog Mass methods proliferated, in these early years of the twentieth century there came to be widespread interest in using similar methods for adults as well. In the words of one contemporary, by 1915 many countries in Europe as well as America “felt the sweep of the ‘new’ Mass, the ‘people’s’ Mass, the ‘Mass with the layman’s voice’”[31] and saw numerous new methods developed which were not intended primarily for children alone but rather for use by the parish community as a whole.

One such version was published in 1923 as The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Rev. Martin Hellriegel.[32] Like Rothensteiner, Hellriegel was a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri and likewise published his vernacular mass method with the imprimatur and full support of the archbishop.[33]

It was arguably the most advanced vernacular Mass method published to-date and built upon the preceding five decades of vernacular Children’s Dialog Masses.[34] It featured the entirety of the missal texts translated into English and recited in alternating chorus by the congregation, the words of consecration alone excepted. It quickly spread throughout the United States, would remain in print until 1939 through many editions, and ultimately sold 250,000 copies.[35]

Fig. 10a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Martin Hellriegel as printed in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 7th ed. (O’Fallon: Pax Press, sd [1930s?]). Photo courtesy of Boston College Library.

Fig. 10b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Martin Hellriegel as printed in The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 7th ed. (O’Fallon: Pax Press, sd [1930s?]). Photo courtesy of Boston College Library.

This marks the beginning of a third genre in vernacular liturgical formation methods, which I have categorized as “English Dialog Masses.” I have chosen this spelling convention both because it was widely used at the time these methods were published and to differentiate these extraordinary vernacular Masses from the extremely modest Latin “Dialogue Mass” promoted in 1958 by Pius XII in the instruction De Musica Sacra that is most commonly associated with the term.[36] These English Dialog Masses meet the same basic definitional criteria as Children’s Dialog Masses except they are not explicitly intended for children only. I have identified at least fourteen prayer book titles that feature these methods, published in at least ninety-six total editions between 1923 and 1960. More than seventy-five of these editions were published before 1950.

In 1927, Benziger Brothers released a method similar to Hellriegel’s which was described as “directions for reciting Mass Prayers in common or dialogue form.” It was published under the title Pray the Mass by John E. Moffatt, SJ and with the imprimatur of Patrick Hayes, Cardinal archbishop of New York.[37] This method also featured all the missal texts (including the priest’s prayers except for the canon) translated into English and recited by the congregation either in union or via alternating chorus.[38] Moffat was a fairly popular devotional author and his method would remain in print for more than a decade in at least two editions.

Fig. 11a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. John Moffatt, SJ as printed in Pray the Mass (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1938). Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 11b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. John Moffatt, SJ as printed in Pray the Mass (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1938). Photo courtesy of the author.

In 1934, the J.S. Paluch Company of Chicago published another prominent English Dialog Mass method, compiled by Rev. Joseph Printon, CSSR.[39] Titled Mass, Communion, and Benediction Prayers for Congregational and Individual Praying, this work promoted unison congregational recitation of most of the key missal texts in English (like the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, and the Our Father) as well as vocal unison devotional prayers during the Canon and after the elevation, etc. Despite the odd and clunky title, it was quite popular and went through sixteen editions in just nine years.

It is interesting to note that this was not even the only vernacular Mass method offered by this same publisher during these years, a fact that offers helpful insight into the popularity of these practices. Alongside Mass, Communion, and Benediction Prayers, J. S. Paluch also simultaneously published Missa Recitata: Mass Recited With The Priest which, while similar, contained a much more comprehensive method of vernacular unison recitation of the mass texts (namely, all of the verbatim texts of the priest except for the canon). It was originally published in 1936, went through at least six editions, and remained in print until the 1950s.

Fig. 12a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Rev. Joseph Printon, CSSR as printed in Mass, Communion, and Benediction Prayers for Congregational and Individual Praying (Chicago: J.S. Paluch Co., 1934).  Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 12b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Missa Recitata: Mass Recited With The Priest, 2nd ed. (Chicago: J.S. Paluch Co., 1947).  Photo courtesy of the author.

Beginning in the 1940s, a number of dioceses and archdioceses around the nation began developing versions of the English Dialog Mass to serve as their own official and standard method of vernacular liturgical formation.  One such example is the Community Mass published by Bishop Edwin O’Hara as the official method for the diocese of Kansas City in 1945. 

Unlike some entirely-vernacular Dialog methods reviewed above, Community Mass required the congregation to respond to the priest in Latin (e.g., “Dominus vobiscum: Et cum spiritu tuo”) but also featured unison vernacular recitation of parts of the Mass Ordinary (e.g., Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) and a variety of priest’s proper prayers (e.g., the Offertory, the washing of hands, the Prayer to the Holy Trinity, etc).

This method would remain in use until at least 1956 and was emulated or used, according to O’Hara, “in many archdioceses and dioceses.” O’Hara was a truly remarkable figure and was responsible for some of the most significant and transformative developments in the history of Catholicism in America, including a pioneering use of modernization and vernacular liturgical catechesis – of which his influential Community Mass is a prime example.[40]

Fig. 13a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Bishop Edwin V. O’Hara as printed in Community Mass (Kansas City: The Diocesan School Office, 1952).  Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 13b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method by Bishop Edwin V. O’Hara as printed in Community Mass (Kansas City: The Diocesan School Office, 1952).  Photo courtesy of the author.

Another example of an official diocesan English Dialog Mass method was Our Dialog Mass, the method of the Archdiocese of St. Louis published in 1949 at the direction of Archbishop Joseph Ritter. Ritter had long been an influential supporter of the Liturgical Movement and would later be appointed to the Vatican’s post-conciliar liturgical commission, organizing the reform of the liturgy and championing its implementation within the United States.[41]

Like O’Hara’s Community Mass, the St. Louis Our Dialog Mass also required the congregation to respond to the priest in Latin but utilized a ‘leader’ to read or narrate many of the proper prayers in English. It also offered several opportunities for the laity to recite some of the Ordinary (e.g. the Gloria, the Creed) and various prayers of the priest (e.g. the Offertory, the prayers for the purification of the chalice) aloud and in unison in the vernacular. Our Dialog Mass reached three printings by October 1950, fourteen printings by November 1953, and would ultimately remain in print until at least 1960. 

Fig. 14a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Our Dialog Mass: Arranged and Officially Approved by The Commission on Sacred Liturgy and Church Music of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (St. Louis: Pio Decimo Press, 1950).  Photo courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Our Dialog Mass: Arranged and Officially Approved by The Commission on Sacred Liturgy and Church Music of the Archdiocese of St. Louis (St. Louis: Pio Decimo Press, 1950).  Photo courtesy of the author.

This concludes our brief survey of examples of the three different genres of vernacular liturgical participation methods between 1861 and 1961. Before continuing to an assessment of how successful these methods were as instruments of liturgical formation, it seems that a brief discussion is warranted regarding their permissibility and how they were received at the time of their publication.

It must be admitted that these Mass methods are surprising to our modern eyes. In many cases, a congregation using one of these methods would be able to pray, sing, and respond exclusively in English from start to finish. Even though the priest was offering the Mass in Latin, the people in the pews were (from their perspective) participating in a vernacular and corporate mode of liturgical worship. In some cases—namely, those methods where the texts of the priest were recited concurrently by the congregation—the total amount of vernacular participation by the laity was even greater than that of a modern Mass in the post-conciliar rites.

(This realization offers interesting opportunities for wider reflection on the idea of vernacular liturgy and the arguments which surrounded the liturgical reforms of the mid-twentieth century. Is there a theological or sacramental difference in the quality or effect of a vernacular Mass if the English words are said by a second priest standing in the pulpit, aisle, or sanctuary as a “conductor” or “leader” in translation of, and in coordination with, the celebrant at the altar? I am not a theologian and cannot competently speculate. Perhaps there is a difference–but would the people in the pews have understood or experienced any meaningful distinction?)

These vernacular Mass methods may appear shocking, or even radical, given conventional narratives about the state of liturgical practice during the century before the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, during these years it was the prevailing canonical and pastoral opinion that such methods were licit and permissible. They were judged to be simply one of many legitimate, optional, methods of Mass attendance which had developed organically over decades. It is difficult given the constraints of this article to convey just how widespread this opinion was. 

Each one of the methods I have cataloged was granted imprimatur by the local bishop and continued to be approved by diocesan censors through multiple editions over decades. They were touted by eminently respected theologians and catechists (e.g., Francis Spirago, Ignaz Schuech, John Sharp, and Josef Andreas Jungmann) and openly discussed and approved of by clerical, education, and choral journals (e.g., Irish Ecclesiastical Record, The Ecclesiastical Review, and The Catholic Choirmaster).[42]

They were also endorsed, supported, and celebrated by—or in the presence of—archbishops, primates, cardinals, and even papal legates throughout the world. In some cases, works containing these methods even received direct approbation by the pope himself.[43] One notable example of such approval was the Children’s Dialog Mass in French celebrated for 70,000 children at the 1938 National Eucharistic Congress in Quebec by the papal representative to Canada Umberto Mozzoni, who lead the apostolic delegation between June 1936 and July 1938, in the presence of Cardinal Jean-Marie-Rodrigue Villeneuve.[44]

Fig. 15a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Messe dialoguée au Congrès Eucharistique National du 25 juin 1938. Photo courtesy of the Archives Archidiocèse de Québec, Pères du Très St-Sacrement, CEN-1938 (AAQ_SSS_CEN_1938). Used with permission.

Fig. 15b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Messe dialoguée au Congrès Eucharistique National du 25 juin 1938. Photo courtesy of the Archives Archidiocèse de Québec, Pères du Très St-Sacrement, CEN-1938 (AAQ_SSS_CEN_1938). Used with permission.

Another prominent example was the Dialog Mass in German which was celebrated for 200,000 people at the 1933 Vienna Catholic Congress by Cardinal Theodor Innitzer in the presence of papal legate Cardinal Pietro La Fontaine.

Fig. 16a – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Gemeinschaftgesang beim Allgemeinen deutscher Katholikentag in Wien 1933. Scans provided by the Erzdiözese Wien – Diözesanarchiv (DAW/Handbibliothek/ KG 998 – General German Catholic Congress Vienna 1933). Used with permission.

Fig. 16b – Example pages from the vernacular Mass method as printed in Gemeinschaftgesang beim Allgemeinen deutscher Katholikentag in Wien 1933. Scans provided the Erzdiözese Wien – Diözesanarchiv (DAW/Handbibliothek/ KG 998 – General German Catholic Congress Vienna 1933). Used with permission.

In general, most Vatican responses to these vernacular practices delegated authority to the local bishop to regulate and approve the methods in his diocese. However, there was one key Vatican limitation on the extent of vernacular participation. On August 4, 1922, the Sacred Congregation of Rites decreed that the faithful could not recite aloud “the Secrets, the Canon and the very words of Consecration” during the Mass.[45]The situation regarding the permissibility of these vernacular methods was succinctly summarized in 1941:

We can now see that between 1861 and 1961 there was a truly remarkable variety of methods for liturgical participation that involved the congregation following the actions of the Mass and reciting Mass texts in English, aloud and in common. This is certainly interesting in and of itself, but this history has direct relevance for us today beyond mere academic curiosity. How might our rediscovery of these methods inform our current efforts to promote a deeper understanding of the liturgy, a deeper participation in the mystery of divine worship, and a Eucharistic revival throughout the Church?

To engage with these questions, I would like to survey what contemporary figures within the Church thought about the various methods we reviewed above. Were they judged to be effective at promoting participation and understanding in the liturgy? Did they achieve lasting, transformative liturgical formation and a renewal within the life of the Church?

In short, as could likely be inferred by their extraordinarily widespread use over many decades, there was broad positive support for these methods amongst the clergy and hierarchy. They were generally viewed as fine and praiseworthy efforts to improve the liturgical formation of the congregation, but were not without criticism or skepticism. Some priests refused to use them, while others considered them to be merely the best possible approach given the circumstances and that they should ultimately be eliminated.[47]

There were, however, three main types or themes of criticism I wish to highlight. First, it was widely admitted even by the most ardent supporters of these methods that they were not a panacea and did not automatically achieve real participation in—and understanding of—the liturgy simply by virtue of their vernacular and corporate elements. Even Peter C. Yorke himself stated:

Another priest, who likewise had created a popular vernacular Mass method, said much the same thing:

The second theme of criticism regarding these methods was not focused on the techniques of the Children’s Mass per se. The particular method or amount of vernacular employed was not at issue; rather, it was seen as a problem that the Catholic education system was primarily responsible for liturgical formation at all.

One of the most consistent and insightful critics of the Children’s Mass on these grounds was Rev. Michael Vincent Kelly, CSB.[50] For decades, Kelly repeatedly highlighted what he viewed as the serious underlying deficiencies in the entire highly polished pre-conciliar system of parish churches and schools. He regularly drew provocative parallels between compulsory state education under the Bolsheviks in Russia and the way Catholic parishes took on essentially all Mass attendance, catechism, education, and formation efforts without expecting or attempting any involvement by the parents. For example:

Kelly’s concern was that the Church was usurping and undermining the ancient and preeminent duty of the parents to inculcate piety and provide religious instruction.[53] If belief, catechesis, and liturgical formation did not spring up within the Christian home (moving from the inside-out), it was clear to Kelly that no program, activity, or method offered by the parish or school (pushed from the outside-in) could make a difference:

The third type of criticism regarding these vernacular methods of liturgical participation grew out of the previous two and focused on the results they were intended to achieve. Despite all the effort and creativity involved in the use of these methods, despite the sincere intentions and earnest zeal of those who created them, despite their expansive use of the vernacular to better assist the laity in understanding and participating in the liturgy, they did not actually appear to produce better results than any other normal means of attending Mass. 

Children who attended Children’s Masses or Dialog Masses for years did not seem to remain faithful or retain a deeper transformative understanding of the liturgy at noticeably greater rates than those who did not. This fact is attested to by individuals like Kelly but can also be more broadly inferred when compared with the voluminous and well-known commentary produced by figures in the English-speaking Liturgical Movement between roughly 1925 and 1955. Vast numbers of children over multiple decades had participated in these vernacular Children’s and Dialog Mass methods. There was no noticeable change in the commentary about the state of liturgical understanding and participation as, year after year, these children matured and graduated into adulthood and normal parish life.

Advocates of these methods, like Peter Yorke, viewed them as good and praiseworthy things even if they did not produce long-lasting results:

The problem was apparently far larger and more serious than could be addressed by new Mass methods or creative catechetical ideas. Indeed, according to Kelly the entire existing system of parishes and schools in general did not seem to make much of an impact if faith and formation did not primarily come from the home:

We have seen that—contrary to conventional assumptions—there was a vast and fascinating history of vernacular, corporate liturgical participation by the laity beginning in at least the 1850s. These methods were not unofficial experiments made at the peripheries by a few reform-minded innovators. On the contrary, they were published with the approval of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, printed for decades by the most respected Catholic publishers (in hundreds of total editions and in millions of total copies), and used with permission around the world in countryside and city, in parish and cathedral. They sprung up in every part of the Church: different methods were created and published by diocesan priests, Redemptorists, Paulists, Basilians, Benedictines, Carmelites, Jesuits, Franciscans, Lasallians, and more. 

It is clear that these vernacular Mass methods were not used in every parish or even a majority of parishes. They were, however, repeatedly discussed in journals and periodicals during these years and a truly astonishing number of books containing these methods were printed. Furthermore, while many of the methods were explicitly designed for children (ranging in age from the very young to college students), a wealth of surviving commentary demonstrates that even dedicated Children’s Masses were perennially popular with adults as well—often to the point of causing “crowding.”[58] All of this demonstrates that these methods were used and experienced by a significant number of Catholics—likely well into the millions—decade after decade, between 1861 and 1961. 

These discoveries cannot but significantly transform our understanding of liturgical worship and catechesis in the century before the Second Vatican Council. They have implications for blanket categorizations of “the pre-conciliar reality” as “a priest mumbling in Latin at one end of the church, his back turned to a congregation, while they fumbled through a perfunctory rosary.”[59] They also complicate assertions that the pre-conciliar rites themselves

This research demonstrates that an extraordinarily generous, creative, and sustained pastoral effort was undertaken to promote the understanding and participation of the laity in the Mass for more than a century before the Second Vatican Council. These vernacular participatory methods were not considered to be standing in opposition to the existing ecclesiology or theology of the liturgy and were practiced without being viewed as something that necessitated the revision of the existing liturgical rites.[61]

We have also seen that these methods, while widely popular, did not escape criticism and were not viewed with naive idealism. Even amongst their strongest supporters they were accompanied with a frank honesty about what could be expected from vernacular vocal participation as a means of liturgical formation: it did not automatically facilitate better understanding, could not make up for the neglect of serious parental leadership, and ultimately did not seem to produce noticeably better or more long-lasting outcomes compared to other methods.

A particularly poignant reflection on this theme was shared by Daniel Callahan, the progressive editor of Commonweal, in April 1964 as the very first post-conciliar liturgical changes were being drafted:

The evidence and commentary we have reviewed from the century preceding the Second Vatican Council strongly suggests that—while praiseworthy—methods of participatory, corporate, vernacular Mass attendance are insufficient in themselves to produce lasting and transformative liturgical formation. Something else is clearly needed. 

Pope Pius XII offered his thoughts on this matter in his 1945 Address to the Parish Priests and Lenten Preachers of Rome:

This is a striking assessment of the fundamental spiritual malaise of modernity, one which seems to suggest answers to the difficult questions raised by Kelly above. In the following decades, these sentiments would be shared or echoed in part by others, including Romano Guardini, Ida Friederike Görres, Joseph Ratzinger, and even Pope Francis in Desiderio Desideravi.[64] 

In light of everything we have discussed, I believe that we should heed the diagnosis offered by Pope Pius XII, Michael Kelly, and others as we labor to encourage Eucharistic revival and effective liturgical formation in our current age. Our efforts ought not to focus primarily on new methods, creative programs, or emphasizing individual and corporate external actions. These are surface things, and as we have seen they were tried extensively between 1861 and 1961; we need to dig deeper to the roots.

It seems clear that we must instead focus most of all on restoring and supporting renewal in the Christian family as the foundation upon which everything else will succeed or fail. In order for a true revival of faith, devotion, understanding, and love for the sacred liturgy to spring up and endure, we must first strive to attain that “most important of all achievements—a parish made-up of true Christian homes, parents recognizing the awful sacredness of their obligations and devoted to [their] fulfillment.”[65]

Quick links to the illustrations in this article:

Fig. 1 – The Sunday School or Catechism, 1861
Figs. 2a & b – The Australian Catholic Hymn Book, 5th ed., sd [1890s?]
Figs. 3a & b – Hymns and Prayers for Catholic Children, 1870
Figs. 4a & b – Prayers for the Children of Catholic Schools, 1878
Figs. 5a & b – Manna: Prayers and Instructions for Catholics, 1896
Figs. 6a & b – Hymns and Prayers for the Children’s Mass, 8th ed., 1913
Figs. 7a & b – Prayers at Mass for School Children, 11th ed., sd [1930s]
Figs. 8a & b – The Garland of Praise, 8th ed., 1942
Figs. 9a & b – The Child’s Daily Missal, 1929
Figs. 10a & b – The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 7th ed., sd [1930s?]
Figs. 11a & b – Pray the Mass, 1938
Fig. 12a – Mass, Communion, and Benediction Prayers…, 1934
Fig. 12b – Missa Recitata: Mass Recited With The Priest, 2nd ed., 1947
Figs. 13a & b – Community Mass,  1952
Figs. 14a & b – Our Dialog Mass, 1950
Figs. 15a & b – Messe dialoguée au Congrès Eucharistique National, 1938
Figs. 16a & b – Gemeinschaftgesang beim Allgemeinen deutscher Katholikentag in Wien, 1933

[1] See Pope Francis, Address at the Audience to the Members of the Organizing Committee of the National Eucharistic Congress of the United States of America (June 19, 2023).

[2] Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter on the Liturgical Formation of the People of God Desiderio Desideravi (June 29, 2022), no. 27.

[3] Robert Barron, “Revitalizing Right Praise,” in The Word On Fire Vatican II Collection (Park Ridge: Word on Fire Institute, 2021), page 154. Elsewhere Barron has commented on the situation by saying “the Church is experiencing a spiritual disaster” and emphasized the urgent need for a Eucharistic revival.

[4] See, for example: C. C. Martindale, “Sanctifying Sunday,” in The Month 170 (1937), pp 118–125; Joseph Henry Schlarmann, Pastoral Letter and Instruction on Liturgy and Church Music (January 16, 1934) as printed in The Messenger, February 9, 1934, pp 1,12.; Karl Joseph Alter, “The Holy Eucharist and the Catholic Action of Educated Laymen,” in The Seventh National Eucharistic Congress, Official Record (Cleveland: Ward & Shaw, 1935), pp 386–392; and Charles Daniel White, “The Eucharistic Sacrifice, Center of Divine Worship” in The Sixth National Eucharistic Congress, Omaha (New York: The Sentinel Press, 1931), pp 77–89.

[5] The most comprehensive modern study of the origins of the active participation of the laity in the liturgy before the Second Vatican Council (most commonly referred to as the “Dialogue Mass”) is undoubtedly Fergus Ryan, O.P., Canimus, Sine Fine Dicentes: The Origin and Development of the “Dialogue Mass” and its Influence on the Preparation of the Missale Romanum of 1970 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2021). In this work, Ryan dedicates only forty-four pages to tracing the history of the Dialogue Mass before 1959. He did not identify any published vernacular Mass method whatsoever (of any kind, in any language) before 1885, and only identified one title—in French—published between 1885 and 1900 in six total editions. Ryan offers fewer than 500 words concerning Dialogue Mass practices in English-speaking lands before 1959 and does not discuss any published English vernacular Mass methods at all. In contrast, this research has identified at least twenty-eight titles of English vernacular mass methods published between 1861 and 1900 in at least seventy-four total editions (of these, seventeen titles in at least fifty-three total editions were published between 1861 and 1884).

[6] The scope of this article is exceedingly limited and can only provide an introduction to- and brief survey of English-language vernacular Mass methods as published in authorized prayer books and hand missals. It is important to note that similar published methods existed throughout Europe during these same years. I intend to explore both English and non-English methods in a future paper which will treat the entire topic in fuller detail and include a wealth of other contemporary commentary about these practices which I could not include here.

[7] Furniss was born June 19, 1809 in Sheffield, England and was ordained a priest in 1834. For more on Furniss, see: Rev. Thomas Livius, CSSR, Father Furniss and his work for children (London: Art and Book Company, 1896), and John Sharp, “Juvenile Holiness: Catholic Revivalism among Children in Victorian Britain” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 2 (1984), pp 220-238.

[8] Thomas Livius, Father Furniss and His Work for Children (London: Art and Book, 1896), 42; see pp 42–51.

[9] See Livius, Father Furniss, pp 51–82.

[10] The book carried the printed approbation of Cardinals Nicholas Wiseman and Paul Cullen, and Archbishops Joseph Dixon, John MacHale, and Patrick Leahy. Publisher advertisements heavily promoted the book’s popularity and ecclesiastical approval. See, for example, the Freeman’s Journal and Daily Commercial Advertiser, December 19, 1866, front page (spelling and formatting original): “This Day Published, 90th Thousand [copies printed], New Edition, with the special recommendation of all the Archbishops of Great Britain and Ireland; also honoured with the approval and Blessing of our Holy Father the Sovereign Pontiff. THE CROWN OF JESUS, the best and most complete Prayer Book ever published. Eleventh Edition.”

[11] Analysis of bookseller catalogs demonstrates that Crown of Jesus prayer books and hymnals were sold in New Zealand (Westport) by 1868, Australia (Sydney and Adelaide) by 1869, and America (New York) by 1869. Furniss’ methods of the Children’s Mass were also included without attribution in other works like J. H. Cornell, Cantica Sacra; Or, Hymns for the Children of the Catholic Church, Set to Original Music (Boston: Donahoe, 1865).

[12] Other examples include: The Children’s Mass, Fifth edition, enlarged (London: Thomas Richardson and Son) first published in 1884 with approbation by James Chadwick, bishop of Hexham and Newcastle included as a subtitle on the cover; The St. Joseph’s Prayer Book for the Young (Dunedin: The Tablet Office), first published in 1888, with the approval and recommendation of the New Zealand bishops of Dunedin, Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington, as well as the Australian bishops of Maitland, Sandhurst, and Sale; and The St. Paul Hymnal (St. Paul: E. M. Lohmann), first published in 1915 as the official hymnal of the Archdiocese of St. Paul by Archbishop John Ireland.

[13] The edition counts for the Children’s Mass genre are likely significantly undercounted due to a lack of surviving records. One example is illustrative of the problem: thanks to bookseller catalogs and advertisements, we can see that the Crown of Jesus prayer books remained in active circulation and sale from 1862 through at least 1936 in certain places. The Crown of Jesus went through eleven editions by 1866, but I have not been able to identify any further numbered edition designations after 1866. It is almost a certainty that copies of these books which were sold in later decades (e.g. the 1890s, 1920s, etc) were not from the eleventh edition printed in 1866. But because I do not have any specific verifiable information about numbered editions after 1866, the Crown of Jesus prayer book is only tallied as eleven of the total 138 known editions mentioned.

[14] The Missionary Society of Saint Paul the Apostle, commonly known as the Paulists, were the first religious community of priests founded in North America. Rev. Isaac Hecker served as a Redemptorist from 1849 to 1858 before founding the Paulists with the personal approval of Pope Pius IX. It seems plausible that Hecker and his confreres learned of the popular Furniss methods of the Children’s Mass during their time as Redemptorists and that this contributed to in some way to the development of the Paulist method. Hecker’s Sunday School was extremely popular: it was attended by 900 students in 1870, grew to 1,500 students by 1875, and continued to serve around 2,000 students for the next several decades. The Prayers and Exercises for the Children’s Mass method was published as part of a larger hymnal and prayer book titled Hymns and Songs for Catholic Children (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1870). There is no authorial attribution to the work, and the preface is unsigned, but the copyright for the book was held by Rev. Joshua Bodfish, a Paulist who was ordained in 1866. It is unclear if Bodfish was directly responsible for the origin of this method.

[15] The method was continued and promoted by legendary Paulist educator Thomas McMillan and was widely praised. See, for example: Michael J. Lavelle, “The Children’s Mass in the Sunday School,” in The Ecclesiastical Review 15 (1896), pp 543–545. McMillan was explicitly noted as having inspired the adoption of similar methods throughout the nation, including A Prayer Book for Sunday-schools by John Belford of Brooklyn which sold more than 2,000,000 copies between 1904 and 1935. For more, see “The Children’s Mass,” in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 35 (1935), pp 691–697.

[16] Prayers for the Children of Catholic Schools (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1878), pp v–vi.

[17] Hammer was born in the Grand Duchy of Baden in 1842, emigrated to America in 1846, and was ordained a priest in 1865. He was a prolific author and noted literary talent, authoring a vast number of works on a wide variety of subjects. He became internationally known for translating Ben Hur into German, an achievement that was universally praised and which ran into hundreds of editions by his death in 1917. For a partial biography on Hammer, see “Rev. Bonaventure Hammer, OFM” in History of the Catholic Church in Indiana, Vol II (Logansport: A. W. Bowen & Co., 1898), pp 238-243. Regarding Hammer’s religious order affiliation, he is listed as ‘OSF’ in books and periodicals until around 1900, after which time he begins to be labeled as ‘OFM’. I believe this to be due to a typo or clerical error, but cannot confirm with any certainty.

[18] For further comparison, in the entire state of Wisconsin there were 47,023 total pupils in all Catholic Schools and a total Catholic population of 455,000. Diocesan statistics drawn from Harry H. Heming, The Catholic Church in Wisconsin (Milwaukee: Catholic Historical Publishing Company – T. J. Sullivan, 1898), pp 293–294.

[19] Publishers selling these books included: Benziger and Wildermann of New York, Kilner and Quinn of Philadelphia, Wiltzius of Milwaukee, Daleiden of Chicago, O’Connor and Gallagher of San Francisco, and Clarke of Denver. To give one example: The Guardian Angel: A Catholic Prayerbook for Children (New York: Wildermann) was one popular prayer book title which contained this “Versicles & Responses” method by Hammer. It reached 738,000 total copies by 1904 and 858,000 copies by 1910.

[20] Yorke was born in Galway, Ireland in 1864, came to America in 1866, and was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of San Francisco in 1887. He was an extraordinary orator and author, and a gigantic figure in the ecclesiastical, political, and labor history of San Francisco. Because of his influence, a variety of articles and histories involving Yorke exist. For more, see for example: Joseph S. Brusher, Consecrated Thunderbolt: Father Yorke of San Francisco (Hawthorne: Joseph F. Wagner, 1973); James Walsh and Timothy Foley, “Father Peter C. Yorke Irish-American Leader,” in Studia Hibernica 14 (1974), pp 90-103; Jeffrey Burns, “¿Qué es esto? The Transformation of St. Peter’s Parish, San Francisco, 1913-1990” in American Congregations, Vol. I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp 396-411; Mary Camilla Fitzmaurice, Historical development of the educational thought of the Reverend Peter C. Yorke, 1893-1925 (Master’s thesis, University of San Francisco, 1963); and The Rev. Peter C. Yorke Collection at the University of San Francisco Archives.

[21] Peter C. Yorke, “Teaching of Liturgy in the Elementary Schools,” part of “Report of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting” in The Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 14 (1917), pp 270–282, at 280–281.

[22] For example, glowing descriptions of Yorke’s method were published in London (The Tablet, April 18, 1903, page 622) and Sydney (The Catholic Press, May 28, 1903, page 7). His work was also featured in scholarly periodicals, for example: “Study of the Holy Mass in the School Room,” in The Catholic School Journal 9 (1909) pp 74, 89–90, and “The Children’s Mass,” in Review of Catholic Pedagogy 1 (1903), pp 326–337. Similar accounts of this method were published for decades and even after his death, as in Educational Lectures (San Francisco: Text Book Publishing, 1933).

[23] Graham was born July 1, 1862 and was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Cleveland in 1890. He was a noted lecturer, author, and orator and had a fascinating priestly career. For many years Graham was pastor of Holy Angels church in Sandusky, Ohio and served as the pastor of (the now-Basilica) St. John the Baptist in Canton, Ohio for twenty-two years. In 1925 he established radio station WHBC at St. John’s to broadcast his lectures and sermons, which he operated and expanded until it was sold to secular interests in 1938 (it continues to operate today!). Graham was named a monsignor in 1940 and at the time of his death in 1944 was regarded as “one of the best known churchmen in the Cleveland and Youngstown dioceses.”

[24] Our Sunday Visitor, November 3, 1918, page 2.

[25] Rothensteiner was an influential priest of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri. Born January 7, 1860, he attended Saint Francis Seminary in Milwaukee and was ordained a priest in 1884. In addition to being devoted to pastoral care, Rothensteiner was also passionate about literature, poetry, and historical scholarship. Over many decades, Rothensteiner was a founding or key member for a variety of research initiatives like the Catholic Historical Society of Saint Louis and the St. Louis Catholic Historical Review. He produced many seminal historical works and amassed a personal library of more than 20,000 volumes which he donated to Mundelein Seminary in Chicago upon his death in 1936. For more on Rothensteiner, see Claire Marie Bachhuber, The German-Catholic Elite: Contributions of a Catholic intellectual and cultural elite of German-American background in early twentieth-century Saint Louis, (Ph.D. diss., St. Louis University, 1984), pp 17-36.

[26] In the foreword to the first edition of 1921, Rothensteiner said his goal was to “. . . [see] the beautiful German hymns, so long in use among our people of German extraction, transmitted to the children and children’s children in the more congenial form of English verse.” In a later edition from 1929, Rothensteiner emphasized “the importance of teaching our children to sing. The love of song is easily cultivated and remains with us through life as a comfort in sorrow, a help in weariness, and an inspiration for good, no less than of joy and gratitude. Spiritual Songs, being entwined with the services of the Church, the happy memories of childhood, its faith and abounding hope, and holy love, remain a joy and support forever.”

[27] For example: the bilingual Messandacht für Schulkinder – Prayers at Mass for Children was released in 1921 by the Nordstern Publishing Co. of St. Cloud, Minnesota. It reprinted Rothensteiner’s vernacular unison Mass prayers and went through three editions within a single year.

[28] Lefebvre was born June 17, 1880 and was ordained a priest in 1904. He was a pivotal and widely respected figure in the modern Liturgical Movement and remained so until his death in 1966. He was also universally known for his landmark Daily Missal with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts (first published in French in 1920 and English in 1924) which quickly became known as the ‘king of missals,’ went on to be translated into almost every European language, and set the standard against which all other hand missals were compared. As far as I am aware, there are no thorough, quality biographical treatments of Dom Gaspar Lefebvre in English; for those interested in learning more, the French-language Wikipedia entry offers a fairly detailed summary drawn from a collection of French-language sources.

[29] Other children’s missals or prayer books only featured one set of fixed prayers for the mass, usually the Ordinary, or at best were a ‘Sunday Missal’ containing proper texts for the Sundays of the year.

[30] The work was first published in French as Missel quotidien pour les enfants. I have not been able to trace the original year of publication with certainty, but I believe it was 1928 or 1929. The first English edition was published in 1929 and was immediately sold throughout America, England, and Australia. The Child’s Daily Missal did not record numbered editions or reliably report copies sold and thus popularity is somewhat difficult to quantify, but in general the book seems to be fairly popular. The French edition appears to have sold 230,000 copies by 1938 and the English edition remained in print until at least 1948. This shows fairly strong demand for the children’s version, as–by way of comparison–the French version of Lefebvre’s original missal for adults sold 105,000 copies during the first two years and the English edition of the same sold 329,000 copies in America between 1929 and 1939.

[31] Gerald Ellard, Men at Work at Worship (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1940), page 133.

[32] Hellreigel was born November 9, 1890 in Heppenheim, Germany, moved to America in 1906, and was ordained a priest in 1914. He was an energetic writer and composer and is considered “one of the giants” of the modern Liturgical Movement. It is difficult to understate his influence on the Catholic Church in America during these decades, for more, see: Noel Barrett, The Contribution of Martin B. Hellriegel to the American Catholic Liturgical Movement, (Ph.D. diss., St. Louis University, 1976).

[33] In 1925, as Hellreigel’s pastoral program received some negative public attention, Glennon wrote a letter to Hellriegel to make clear his continued support: “My dear Father Hellriegel, I am very much impressed with the efforts you are making and making successfully, of bringing our priests and people to a truer knowledge of the spirit, meaning and form of the great liturgy of the Church. Your work is not an innovation. It is a restoration and especially am I pleased to see your endeavor to more closely associate, indeed incorporate, the Catholic laity in this liturgy. I feel that the Blessed Savior whom you are bringing nearer and nearer through his love and the Sacraments to the people will continue to bless your work; and I need not add that you have my commendation and benediction.” See Bachhuber, The German-Catholic Elite, page 116.

[34] It is interesting to reflect on the dates of these publications in relation to more well-known events from the conventional history of the Liturgical Movement. For example, the first modern Dialogue Mass at Maria Laach Abbey in Germany–a controversial event long considered by conventional scholarship to be the origin of the practice–occurred on August 6, 1921 and was performed in Latin. This is far less ‘radical’ than the simultaneous vernacular recitation of the priest’s prayers by the laity which, we have seen, had been occurring for decades prior to any innovations or experiments at Maria Laach. For more on the Maria Laach Mass, see Rev. Keith Pecklers, The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America, 1926-1955 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), page 6.

[35] For example, within just five months of publication in O’Fallon, Missouri, the method was in use at St. Mary church in Mt. Angel, Oregon; see “Points From Letters,” in The Fortnightly Review 31 (1924), page 175. Total number of copies printed sourced from Rev. Paul Marx, The Life and Work of Virgil Michel (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1957), page 131, note 8.

[36] Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy De Musica Sacra (September 3, 1958), no. 31, available at https://adoremus.org/1958/09/instruction-on-sacred-music/.

[37] Moffatt was born October 9, 1894, entered the Society of Jesus at Los Gatos, California in 1917, and was ordained a priest in 1930. Moffatt was a member of a notable Spokane, Washington family and one of five siblings, all of whom entered religious life. He was a teacher and retreat master for the Jesuits in Oregon and Washington, was an author of many popular devotional books, and died in 1969. There are also archival holdings concerning Moffatt, including letters, memorabilia, and a “Chronicle of the Life of Rev. John E. Moffatt” in the Arthur D. Spearman, SJ, Papers collection (MSS.2014.08.18) at the Archives & Special Collections at Santa Clara University.

[38] The preface by Moffatt explains the purpose of the vernacular dialog method: “But as we kneel daily before the altar do we think of the Mass in this way? Do we realize deeply what we believe so firmly? Ah, if we did, how different would be our attitude towards this August Mystery! How utterly absorbed would we be in every prayer and action of the Sacred Drama! Like Mary at the foot of the cross, we would be not mere spectators but actual co-offerers of the Sacred Victim. That this may be accomplished in her children is the earnest desire of Holy Church. It was with this in view that the late Pope Pius X urged the faithful to “pray the Mass.” […] To assist towards this end is the purpose of this little work. It will be found suited for private assistance at the Holy Sacrifice, for the use of the server at the altar, or for the recitation by the faithful of the Mass Prayers in English, either in unison or by means of dialogue […] For such use it will be well to appoint a leader who may alternate with the faithful in the recitation of the “Ordinary Prayers” and, if desired, read wholly, from a complete Missal, the “Proper Prayers,” which change from day to day, thus procuring a pleasing variety and avoiding monotony from a daily recitation of the same prayers.”

[39] Printon was born August 24, 1882 in Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany, was ordained a priest in St. Louis, Missouri in 1909, and died in 1940. For many years he was a member of the Chicago Redemptorist community at St. Alphonsus church and was a prominent retreat-master and author. There is not much biographical information available about Printon, but short summaries exist here and here.

[40] O’Hara was, among other things, responsible for the creation and success of the American Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, the Catholic Rural Life program, the 1941 New Testament translation, the revision of the Baltimore Catechism, the 1954 landmark American English Collectio Rituum, and strong support and promotion of the Liturgical Movement and liturgical progress. Vincent S. Waters, Bishop of Raleigh, described O’Hara thus in 1955: “Among the members of the hierarchy of the United States there is no one who has influenced the history of the church in this country more.” For more on O’Hara’s life and career, see J.G. Shaw, Edwin Vincent O’Hara: American Prelate (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1957). For a detailed account of O’Hara’s role in creating the 1954 English Collectio Rituum, see Nico Fassino, Forgotten English Rituals: The Collectio Rituum of 1954 and the untold history of the vernacular administration of the sacraments.

[41] Ritter also created a companion work which served as the official diocesan standard for the ‘High Mass’, entitled: Our Sung Mass, The High Mass, Arranged and Officially Approved for Congregational Use. For more on Ritter’s biography, see: Nicholas Scheider, Joseph Elmer Cardinal Ritter: His Life and Times (St. Louis: Liguori Publications, 2010).

[42] For the named catechists see Spirago’s Method of Christian Doctrine: A Manual for Priests, Teachers, and Parents (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1901), pp 408–409, The Priest in the Pulpit: A Manual of Homiletics and Catechetics (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1894), pp 304–308, Teaching and Preaching Religion to Children (New York: P. J. Kenedy and Son, 1936), pp 58–61, and Handing on the Faith; A Manual of Catechetics (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959), pp 329–340. For clerical journals see, for example: “Notices of Books,” in The Irish Ecclesiastical Record 3 (1882), pp 380–381, “Vernacular Hymns at Divine Service,” in The Ecclesiastical Review 42 (1910), pp 337–341, “Program of Anniversaries Celebration,” in The Catholic Choirmaster 16 (1930), page 113, and also Lavelle, “The Children’s Mass in the Sunday School” (see note 15 above).

[43] For editions that received papal approval see, for example: The Crown of Jesus (London: Richardson & Son, 1862) and Hosanna: Catholic Hymn Book (St. Louis: Herder, 1914).

[44] This French method was even translated into English and used in the United States. For example, Rev. Martin Carrabine, S.J., used this method at a mass for 1,200 people during the thirty-sixth General Meeting of CISCA (the Chicago Inter-Student Catholic Action)on February 22, 1939. See Gerald Ellard, “Progress of the Dialog Mass in Chicago,” in Orate Fratres 14 (1939), page 21.

[45] Decree number 4375. See Timothy L. Bouscaren, “Missa Dialogata: Five Replies to the Sacred Congregation of Rites,” in The Canon Law Digest: Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law 1933–1942, vol. II, (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1943), pp 198–200, at 199.

[46] William J. Lallou, “The Status of the ‘Missa Recitata,’” in The American Ecclesiastical Review 104 (1941), page 455.

[47] “No exertion on our part should be spared to … do away with the children’s Mass. It is an institution apparently sanctioned by a usage almost universal. There is much to be said against it, and it is certainly tenable that it owes its existence not because it is looked upon as the best, but the best possible under certain circumstances.” See Michael Vincent Kelly, “Is the Parish School Undertaking Too Much?,” in The American Ecclesiastical Review 54 (1916), pp 158–166, at 165. Much of the debate about the Children’s or Dialog Masses understandably focused on the use of the vernacular, but some of the criticism focused on the existence of the Children’s Mass itself – that is, some voices (both lay and clerical) attacked the fundamental idea of having children attending a separate Mass which specially tailored to them and from which parents were often excluded (for more see note 58 below). For one such example, see Rev. Michael Antoninus Keane, OP, “The Children’s Mass” in Report of the Nineteenth Eucharistic Congress, held at Westminster from 9th to 13th September 1908 (London: Sands Company, 1909), pp 480-489. Such criticism grew more widespread in the decade immediately preceding the Second Vatican Council: speaking in 1961, then-Archbishop of Liverpool John Heenan said: “We do a great deal innocently to destroy family life. Even in our spiritual life in the Church we do a great deal to harm family relations […] We have children’s Masses. I am thinking of Sunday when children are separated from their mothers and fathers […] Parents ought to be there” (see “Materialism threat to family life,” in NCWC News Service, July 31, 1961, wire copy page 8). In 1964, Archbishop of Pittsburgh John Wright abolished all Children’s Masses–which were “traditional and compulsory in some parishes”–to triumphant national news coverage (see “Children’s Mass discontinued in Liturgical Change,” in NCWC News Service, November 17, 1964, wire copy page 1).

[48] Yorke, “The Children’s Mass,” page 337.

[49] Rev. Joseph Putz, My Mass (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1954), pp 138-139.

[50] Kelly is a fascinating figure with a complex biography. From 1922 to 1942, Kelly was a member of the Basilian North American General Council and served as acting Superior General from 1929-1930. He also founded and directed the Basilian Press in Toronto. In this role, he oversaw the printing of the lucrative but controversial St. Basil Hymnal which sold 600,000 copies by 1919 and reached forty editions by 1935. It is interesting to note that the St. Basil Hymnal also contained a vernacular method of Children’s Mass method despite Kelly’s general skepticism of the practice. The hymnal was controversial not for this reason, however, but because the quality of its music was universally excoriated: “… from a musical and literary point of view it was probably the poorest and most wretched specimen of the entire collection of miserable hymnals with which the Catholic Church has been afflicted for many generations. … [It was] difficult to believe that the greater part of the musical setting was intended to be taken seriously, and not as a ghastly joke. … [it] should never have been permitted to circulate.” See “The St. Basil’s Hymnal,” in The Catholic Choirmaster 5 (1919), pp 39-45.

[51] Michael Vincent Kelly, “Catechism-Teaching XIV: Bolshevism,” in The Catholic School Journal 20 (1920), pp 329–330, at 329.

[52] Michael Vincent Kelly, “How Shall Priests Help Improve the Home?,” in The American Ecclesiastical Review 97 (1937), pp 290–292, at 292.

[53] “There is another aspect of this question, the most disastrous of all. Perhaps we never suspect that in our solicitude for children in our charge we undermine traditions held sacred for generations […] from time immemorial [parents have been responsible for the] religious instruction and training of the children. By our action and methods we give these parents to understand that they are henceforth relieved of this duty.” See Kelly, “Catechism-Teaching XIV: Bolshevism,” pp 329-330. This remained a key concern for Kelly decades later: “If parents neglect to take any part in the religious instruction of their children, teaching them not so much as one prayer, we expect the sisters in the school to make up for it. Thus from year to year the home carries on in its neglectful ways, encouraged by our system to become more and more neglectful. […] Over and over [priests] have been given minute directions on other matters, on the administration of the sacraments, methods of instructing children and adults, means of making parish societies and organizations vigorous, instructions in handling finances, the course to pursue in our dealings with callers, with assistants, with housekeepers; and the rest of these topics. Meanwhile, this most important of all achievements—a parish made-up of true Christian homes, parents recognizing the awful sacredness of their obligations and devoted to the fulfillment of these obligations—who will tell us what to do about it? Shall we, as in the past, just continue talking and writing and be satisfied with a continuance of results, those results we are so ready to deplore, the gradual disappearance of the Christian home.” See Rev. Michael Vincent Kelly, “How Shall Priests Help Improve the Home?” in The American Ecclesiastical Review 97 (1937), page 291.

[54] Kelly, “Catechism-Teaching XIV: Bolshevism,” 330; see also Kelly, “How Shall Priests Help Improve the Home?,” page 291.

[55] Yorke, “Teaching of Liturgy in the Elementary Schools,” page 282.

[56] Michael Vincent Kelly, “Religious Instruction: School Children Assisting at Mass,” in The Catholic School Journal 21 (1921), pp 329-330.

[57] Kelly, “How Shall Priests Help Improve the Home?,” page 290.

[58] There is consistent mention made over many decades in Catholic newspapers and periodicals of adults attending children’s Masses, in some cases doing so in such numbers as to earn rebukes from the priests. Some of the anecdotes are frankly charming. A few examples include: “Father Carroll is endeavouring to put a stop to the practice of adults crowding to the children’s special mass on Sundays at the Sacred Heart Church” (see The Freeman’s Journal, May 16, 1885, page 15); “… Father Jacques made some strong remarks concerning the practice of adults attending [the children’s] mass. He wishes it clearly understood that the church is reserved for the children at this hour, and none but the children should attend” (see The Ottawa Citizen, May 17, 1904, page 5); “At the children’s Mass, at least 600 children are present, and it is most edifying. We ‘grown-ups’ often have a great desire to attend it [but] it is the pastor’s wish that we shall not attend” (see The Sacred Heart Review, February 4, 1905, page 10); and “9 o’clock is the children’s Mass and so crowded that adults have to stand, all bunched together in the back and if you wear high heels you’re sorry for it afterwards” (see Mary Tinley Daly, “At Our House,” in NCWC News Service, February 8, 1954, unnumbered wire copy sheet).

[59] “Listening to the spirit: Liturgical Reform,” in The Tablet, May 14, 2022, page 2.

[60] John Cavadini, Mary Healy, Thomas Weinandy, “A Synoptic Look at the Failures and Successes of Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms,” in Church Life Journal (December 1, 2022).

[61] Indeed the very opposite seems to have occurred: in the 1940s and 1950s, the venerable and widespread use of these optional vernacular Mass methods appears to have somewhat threatened the viability of the Liturgical Movement’s advocacy for direct universal mandatory liturgical reform (it was perhaps harder to ‘sell’ the need to change the Roman Missal itself when there were already a diverse range of vernacular participatory Mass method options on offer for anyone who desired them). As they began to have more success in publicly calling for official changes to the Mass and sacraments, several prominent members of the Liturgical Movement (e.g. Gerald Ellard and Martin Hellriegel) attempted to ‘retcon’ their prior advocacy for these vernacular methods and quietly covered up formerly prominent vernacular methods that they themselves had created and promoted. This is one of several reasons why these vernacular methods gradually came to be ‘forgotten’ and eventually slipped out of popular and academic consciousness. While this is an important topic, space and scope limitations make it impossible to further explore here and therefore I intend to give a fuller treatment in the future.

[62] Daniel Callahan, “Clergy, Lay Consensus,” in The Pittsburgh Catholic, April 9, 1964, page 5. Callahan’s sentiments seem to be nearly identical to those expressed by Romano Guardini in 1964 and quoted in Desiderio Desideravi, no. 34: “Guardini does not hesitate to declare that without liturgical formation ‘then ritual and textual reforms won’t help much.’” Callahan concludes: “[This] illustrates how little good principle ensures good practice. … In particular, it makes me hesitate to believe that, by itself, the Council can work wonders, much less that brilliant, progressive decrees could remake the church. They will help, and they are essential, but they will only be a beginning. What matters to me, as I suggested in my last foray, are results.” It is interesting to consider Callahan’s final remark in light of Bishop Robert Barron’s commentary, from the introduction of this article, on why the luminaries of the Liturgical Movement would judge their work to be a failure based on the current state of the church.

[63] Address delivered February 17, 1945. The full Italian text can be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 37 (1945), pp 33–43. As far as I can tell, the complete text of the address has never been translated into English. The English translation given above is drawn from two sources: the first sentence, before the ellipsis, is taken from The Catholic Priesthood According to the Teaching of the Church: Papal Documents from Pius X to Pius XII, ed. Pierre Veuillot,  trans. John A. O’Flynn et al. (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958), page 78; the remainder of the text is taken from Gerald Ellard, The Mass of the Future (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1948), page 156.

[64] For Guardini and Görres see, for example: Ida Friederike Görres, trans. Jennifer S. Bryson, “When Does a Person Have a Capacity for Liturgy?,” in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 25 (2022), 126–139; for Ratzinger see, for example: Robert Sarah, “The Inexhaustible Reality: Joseph Ratzinger and the Sacred Liturgy” in Communio 49 (2022), 627–646; for Pope Francis see: Desiderio Desideravi, no. 44.

[65] Kelly, “How Shall Priests Help Improve the Home?,” page 291.

1. FEATURED HAND MISSALS & PRAYER-BOOKS 

This is the list of rare hand missals, prayer-books, and hymnals depicted in the 30 illustrations of this article. The year listed at the start of each entry is the first year of publication for the title, while the year at the end of each entry is the year of the edition used for the photograph in the illustration.

2. PRIMARY SOURCES CITED

2.1 Other Hand Missals & Prayer-Books

2.2 Newspapers

2.3 Archival Collections

2.4 General Primary Sources

3. SECONDARY SOURCES CITED

3.1 General Secondary Sources

3.2 Websites & Blog Posts

• Follow us on Twitter

• About
• Contact
• Donate
• Features
• Home