WISH I COULD assure our readers that every liturgical decree by the USCCB has been praiseworthy and correct. Sadly, the truth is much knottier. Father Frederick R. McManus (d. 2005) convinced the BCL to give tremendous “advisory” power to something called the Committee on the Liturgy, which has frequently modified its own name. [It currently calls itself: ‘Committee on Divine Worship’.] It might be best to simply refer to it as the MCMANUS COMMITTEE, owing to its history. Beginning in the 1960s, this group published many troubling statements which would require years to document; but let me cite one example. In 1972, they published The Place of Music in Eucharistic Celebrations which warned against singing from the PSALTER (!!!) at Mass, since doing so “may create problems rather than solve them.” Even now, it seems unthinkable such a repugnant document got approval.1 (It was finally rescinded in 2008.)
(1 of 2) Tantum Ergo • I mention this because an obsession or ‘golden oldie’ of the McManus crowd was their attempt to abolish one of the four traditional ends of prayer: viz. adoration. At every Mass, Catholics are supposed to pray T.A.R.P.: Thanksgiving, Adoration, Reparation, Petition. However, certain ‘reformers’—especially during the 1980s—vociferously insisted that it was wrong to adore the Eucharist at Mass.2 But practicing Catholics realize “Tantum Ergo” (and other hymns adoring the SANCTISSIMUM) are perfectly appropriate for the Holy Mass. To pretend we shouldn’t adore the Eucharist, in my opinion, goes beyond misguided into the realm of the satanic.
(2 of 2) Tantum Ergo • The following setting of the PANGE LINGUA by Father Edgard de Læt (d. 1973) can be sung by two females and one male. Readers know that “Tantum Ergo” is part of a longer hymn (PANGE LINGUA) by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In other words, the PANGE LINGUA by definition contains “Tantum Ergo.”
* PDF Download • PANGE LINGUA (Musical Score for 3 Voices)
—Harmonies courtesy of Father Edgard De Laet, priest & professor at the LEMMENSINSTITUUT.
Lack Of Singers • I mentioned how—for very small scholae cantorum—that piece can be sung with one male and two females. If that’s the method of performance chosen, the singers would switch to unison with organ on the odd verses. When my choir sings this piece, we will have SATB harmony (without organ) on the odd verses.
Feeling Despondent • Most readers will not bother to click on the link which leads to the rehearsal videos for each individual voice—and that makes me feel downcast, because those videos took a long time to create! (I’m actually embarrassed to admit how long they took.)
No Such Thing As Neutral • Everything done in the liturgical sphere communicates something—everything. There’s no such thing as “neutral.” For instance, in the pre-conciliar rite (a.k.a. MISSALE VETUSTUM or EXTRAORDINARY FORM), he who would proclaim Sacred Scripture at Mass first vested in special clothing and said special prayers in preparation. But Father McManus and his fellow ‘agents of renewal’ deliberately eliminated that, insisting that lay people walk up to the sanctuary, not having carefully put on special vestments and not having said special prayers in preparation. Moreover, in the pre-conciliar rite, Sacred Scripture was only proclaimed at Mass by one who had dedicated his entire life to God by taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Whether we like it or not, all this communicated something (even subliminally).
Congregations Not Blameworthy • Catholics in the 1970s did what they were told by the clergy. It’s silly to blame them for obeying legitimate authority. As insane as it sounds, people like Frederick McManus were considered ‘experts’ in the sacred liturgy. When the MCMANUS COMMITTEE declared that the public proclamation of Sacred Scripture isn’t really important enough to require special vestments, special preparatory prayers, and reservation to ministers who have dedicated their life to God—that communicates something. And then we wonder why many Catholics no longer consider Sacred Scripture inerrant?
1980s • Imagine you were an adult in the 1980s. You had little choice except to believe the ‘experts’ because the INTERNET didn’t exist yet and libraries in your neighborhood weren’t likely to contain Catholic liturgical documents. (Even if you had such documents, they were most likely written in Latin.) Consider what Father McManus said about Hand-Communion. Writing in 1987, Father McManus—without presenting a shred of evidence or supporting documentation—made the following claim about receiving Holy Communion in the hand:
“Communion in the hand, besides being a more active, committed, and mature sign of sharing in the Lord’s body, has proved to be a more reverent mode of communicating.”
Do you agree such a statement is indefensible?
Imagine claiming—without evidence
—that receiving the SANCTISSIMUM
in the hand is a “more reverent” way.
Imagine claiming—without evidence
—that receiving the SANCTISSIMUM
in the hand is a “more active” way.
Imagine claiming—without evidence
—that receiving the SANCTISSIMUM
in the hand is a “more committed” way.
Imagine claiming—without evidence
—that receiving the SANCTISSIMUM
in the hand is a “more mature” way.
No Foundation • What basis does Father McManus have for declaring that receiving the SANCTISSIMUM kneeling on the tongue is “less reverent” and “less mature” than receiving standing up in the hand? In another place, McManus refers to reception on the tongue as the “discipline of the past several centuries.” That’s like saying: “Gregorian chant was something the Church sang for a few years…” Hating reception on the tongue is one thing (and McManus clearly hates the traditional practice). But telling egregious lies to one’s readers is something else entirely.
Reform of the Reform? • The Catholic Church in America is still reeling from the ‘reforms’ done by McManus and his colleagues. Readers know very well how—with each passing year—more churches are closed and more dioceses file bankruptcy. But someday, much that got destroyed in the 1970s will have to be set right. I spent a long time preparing those rehearsal videos (above). I hope that I can contribute in some small way to the renewal of the sacred liturgy so desperately needed in our times.
Addendum • It takes a special type of arrogance to look at the liturgical praxis of the Church going back 1,600 years—including the judgment of great saints like John Mary Vianney, Isaac Jogues, Cardinal Bonaventure, and Don Bosco—and to nonetheless declare: “They are wrong; I know better.” Father McManus seems to have been such a character. Over these last 20 years, I have read many of his writings. He had infinite confidence in his own abilities. Even when shown evidence of bad results, not for an instant did he ponder whether changes he made (along with his fellow ‘agents of renewal’) were the cause.
McManus knew he was right. More importantly, he knew the great saints were wrong. Since I was born in the 1980s, I never met him. But if his personality resembled his writings, he must have been insufferable. And yet, he often made elementary mistakes. For instance, he seems never to have read the ‘charter of reform’ promulgated by Pope Saint Paul VI on 3 April 1969. That document, often referred to as MISSALE ROMANUM, is so crucially important that it’s been reprinted in the front pages of every Roman Rite Missal for the last 57 years. And yet, as I have said, McManus seems not to have been aware of it. For instance, its 12th paragraph clearly says:
“Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”
McManus seems never to have read this. (If he did, he misunderstood it.) For proof of this, cf. page 153 of the book he edited in 1987, called “Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal,” which contains his copious commentary about everything under the sun, from Clown Ministry (p. 252ff) to the Tridentine Mass (p. 236ff).
1 Any Church musician knows that 97% of what we sing comes from the PSALTER. Only a lunatic who’s never set foot in a Catholic Church could be ignorant of this basic fact. In times like this, it’s important to remember that our Lord Himself chose Judas to be an Apostle. When England broke away from the Catholic Church in the 16th century, only one English bishop (Saint John Fisher) had the holiness and courage to resist; and the Anglicans murdered him because of it. Indeed, our Savior was sentenced to death by the highest religious authorities of the time! In fairness to the bishops, however, the committee in Washington D.C. usually keeps them in the dark. Then, at the last moment, they’re asked to vote on certain items.
2 For instance, cf. the American Catholic Hymnal (1992) insists that hymns which adore Christ must never be used at Mass, according to what they call “the Church’s renewed understanding of the Eucharist.” They also explicitly condemn prayers and hymns directed to the Holy Trinity during Mass. (The question is never answered whether they were aware of the liturgical feast called “Trinity Sunday!”) Indeed, that hymnal’s PREFACE repeatedly and explicitly says hymns which adore Christ must not be used during Mass; rather, they claim the “right emphasis” [their phrase] should be “unity.” That hymnal also explicitly says to avoid words like brotherhood, man, and mankind. Instead, it promotes new texts such as God, Like A Mother which—according to the editors of that book—manifest the “new teachings” [their phrase] of the Catholic Church. Needless to say, they never provide any citations for these “new teachings.”
