First Extraordinary Form Mass

[otjm]

Having grown up in the Latin Mass era, I am pleased that my city has a Latin Mass every Sunday. The big difference I notice is the reverence of the attendees. At my parish before Mass, people are gathering in the aisles and/or the vestibule and talking loudly so that it is difficult to say a rosary before Mass begins. That is not the case prior to a Mass in the EF.

We had that problem for a while too. However, the cure to the issue was fairly simple.

Somewhere about 5 to 7 minutes before Mass starts, the choir sings a song; then shortly aftr that, one of the readers goes to the side lectern and makes the announcements, returns to the back for procession, and Mass begins.

The overall effect has been a reduced amount of talk even before the choir starts.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank you so much

A question for you IF I may ask it?

In your opinion, did the new Mass have ANY significant role in the subsequent exodus of Catholics from the Church and the Catholic Faith?

God Bless you

Patrick

In my opinion and in my lived experience…no.

Not only did it occasion few people leaving the Church, it occasioned many people entering the Church, as you look at the explosive rate of growth of the Church in Africa, for example, at a rate far greater than before the Council. At the time of the Council, most of the bishops from Africa were European missionaries who were ministering there, including I might add, Marcel Lefebvre. The Church in Africa truly became African after the Council…thanks be to God.

The expansion of the Church in Africa was a beautiful thing to be a part of…as the liturgy became inculturated. It is one of my more special memories of that era.

For one of my milestone anniversaries here in my later years, the expatriate community from Africa came together to organise for me – with the drums, their music, their hymns, and everything else African – the anniversary Mass. It was the most profoundly meaningful of celebrations. As some of my brother priests said, they had never experienced a congregation so engaged in the rite – thanks to my brothers and sister from Africa.

Frankly, the issues we confront are nothing so trivial as the ceremonial of how the Mass is offered. No, the matter is much profounder. From my grandparents and parents who saw the destruction of the continent in two world wars, financial calamity in the global economic crisis between the wars, the destitution after World War II, I grew up in a generation that understood and had internalised our complete dependence upon God and profoundly lived it…as well as the importance of the Church in our lives and in our society at both the micro and macro levels.

Today…God and the Church are very remote from the lives of most people who live in the first world. For many, if they even consider Him to exist at all, they have no real need of Him.

If you need food, you are not relying on the earth to directly give it to you, as my grandparents did…you go to a grocery and it is arrayed in unimaginable abundance. You don’t actually wonder if the crop that you planted will make or not because of a drought or the blight or what have you.

You are not waiting in a line for bread or hoping for rations, as in decades past in the midst of calamities well beyond your control or the ability of society to manage.

There is a vast social security network that means, instead of turning to the Father and asking for one’s daily bread/needs, one goes to social services for help.

Moreover, when the paradigm is maximisation of pleasure in whatever form one self-determines is best…of the realisation of material and monetary success as primary goals in life…that morality could be self-determined according to non-religious principles…that “spiritual” wellness can be attained apart from any organised religion…then one is confronting a crisis and breakdown on multiple fronts.

Those of us alive saw it beginning in the 60s with the sexual revolution. A concept of human freedom as a license to do anything desired, as long as others were not quantifiably “hurt”, the spread of materialism, “if it can be done, it should be done,” the loss of appreciation of the family as a reality of divine constitution that transcends a social contract theory, and – frankly – the rejection of a vision of the human person derived from theological anthropology.

The Church struggles and will struggle with these crises long after I am dead.

One thing I certainly did see that caused a reduction in Mass attendance was the removal of any societal constraint on the practice of religion. This meant many people ceased to practice because they were liberated from an external expectation to be involved.

To be clear, I never favoured constraint or pretense as a reason for religious practice…not at all. But it was very real in the era before the Council. Society threw that off.

There were some small number of people who saw change in any form through an undifferentiated lens…if they can change the discipline of eating meat on Friday today, the dogma of the Trinity can be wiped out tomorrow"…which is sheer stupidity, but that also says something in itself about elements of the time in which I was young.

It should never be looked back upon through “rose coloured glasses.”

 

[ProVobis]

I was born in 1956 and was a young teenager when mass in the vernacular was introduced.

From what I saw, it didn’t look like an exodus at all

Where else could they go? Missing Mass was a serious sin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am stepping in ahead of Father, but I can only speak to the US.

Polls taken over time show a peak of church attendance, peaking approximately 1957. The started showing a drop-off after that time, but the drop off amounted to approximately 1% per year.

There was no discernible change in the rate of drop-off either during or after Vatican 2, or the institution of the OF.

I have read numerous comments in this forum in the past indicating major numbers of people leaving when the OF was introduced. However, other than personal, anecdotal comments made 30 to 40 years after the alleged exodus, there is no proof of such occurring. Some of those comments have been made by people who disparage the OF; I always consider the source. Hyperbole abounds among some groups, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Without getting into sub groups who have separated themselves off from the Church, if you stop to think about it, where would people go, to go to Mass? Some may have stopped going altogether, but that too is a minority of a minority.

There has been an exodus; but it was not massive at any given time; it was rather a trickle. And that exodus started 12 years before the OF was promulgated.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is easy to fall into, but it is most often not the cause of the matter being considered - here, people either leaving the Church for another ecclesial body or simply no longer going to Mass. And that particularly needs to be conidered in light of the fact that people started dropping off/out 12 years before, and the pattern (that is, the % dropping off/out) is consistent both before and after the event (the OF).

As far as I am concerned, you are always welcomed to step in. You are one of those posters I most enjoy reading because of the thoughtfulness, knowledge, and experiences you bring to bear on the topics about which you write. Your time in an American seminary, at this particular moment in history, would have also given you a distinctive insight.

We shall team up here since you can only speak for the US of that era and I can say relatively little about the US then.

I am not a sociologist but, like you, I appreciate the great work of CARA and rely on their data and their data analysis.

Factors external to the Church were much more important in terms of what happened concerning the regard of outsiders for the Church at the time of the Council.

One thinks, for instance, of “The Quiet Revolution.” That had nothing to do with the Council or the liturgy. It had to do with a rejection of what was seen as overreach by the Church in life and in society by those wanting to be freed from that hegemony. One can understand what they were about. One can also disagree with various results. One can see it through the paradigm of a needed restructuring. But whatever the approach, you have to be honest about why it happened and what motivated it.

But from a European perspective, I can list A LOT of things that caused disaffection for the Church – and the liturgical reform and renewal would be at the very bottom of a long list.

You, OTJM, would have a better insight than I as to the extent that the Quiet Revolution had a mirror occurrence in the United States. I have never really heard it spoken of, as such, though I recognise the fingerprints of it in phenomenon of the 1960s in the United States that I have read about.

Those who selectively look back to the past with nostalgia for some “golden era that was” and to the present with “a lament for what is” do well to go back and re-read their history books.

When the much loved (today) Saint John Vianney took up his assignment in Ars, the number of people attending Mass was, essentially, zero. In the Italy of the 19th century, when Pope Pius IX died, as they were conveying his body for burial (he did not want to be buried in the Vatican, having been a prisoner in the Vatican) there was an effort to throw his bier into the Tiber. It almost succeeded but for the heroic effort of a few.

It was really God’s grace that brought the Church through – and out of – the 19th century. Having taught Church history, it is an era of which I can say some positive things but they are few, far between, and relate primarily to extraordinary individuals who, today, we can see were ahead of their time. These remarkable individuals suffered tremendously, I might add.

 

[Blessedwithfive]

Where else could they go? Missing Mass was a serious sin.

It STILL is…

 

[giuseppeTO]

Not only are there not many priests who actually speak Latin but in many seminaries Latin is not even taught anymore.

I have only known of 2 priests in my lifetime who can actually converse in Latin, including the time prior to the Second Vatican Council, and in my experience with the SSPX.

Latin is not an easy language to converse in - especially if you have no one to practice with. It is easier to translate “off line”. I took four years of high school Latin and even in my senior year, it was a struggle to translate Virgil’s Aeneid.

 

[PJM]

I am stepping in ahead of Father, but I can only speak to the US.

Polls taken over time show a peak of church attendance, peaking approximately 1957. The started showing a drop-off after that time, but the drop off amounted to approximately 1% per year.

There was no discernible change in the rate of drop-off either during or after Vatican 2, or the institution of the OF.

I have read numerous comments in this forum in the past indicating major numbers of people leaving when the OF was introduced. However, other than personal, anecdotal comments made 30 to 40 years after the alleged exodus, there is no proof of such occurring. Some of those comments have been made by people who disparage the OF; I always consider the source. Hyperbole abounds among some groups, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Without getting into sub groups who have separated themselves off from the Church, if you stop to think about it, where would people go, to go to Mass? Some may have stopped going altogether, but that too is a minority of a minority.

There has been an exodus; but it was not massive at any given time; it was rather a trickle. And that exodus started 12 years before the OF was promulgated.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is easy to fall into, but it is most often not the cause of the matter being considered - here, people either leaving the Church for another ecclesial body or simply no longer going to Mass. And that particularly needs to be conidered in light of the fact that people started dropping off/out 12 years before, and the pattern (that is, the % dropping off/out) is consistent both before and after the event (the OF).

Thanks for sahring, and I’ll do a bit more research

 

[PJM]

In my opinion and in my lived experience…no.

Not only did it occasion few people leaving the Church, it occasioned many people entering the Church, as you look at the explosive rate of growth of the Church in Africa, for example, at a rate far greater than before the Council. At the time of the Council, most of the bishops from Africa were European missionaries who were ministering there, including I might add, Marcel Lefebvre. The Church in Africa truly became African after the Council…thanks be to God.

The expansion of the Church in Africa was a beautiful thing to be a part of…as the liturgy became inculturated. It is one of my more special memories of that era.

For one of my milestone anniversaries here in my later years, the expatriate community from Africa came together to organise for me – with the drums, their music, their hymns, and everything else African – the anniversary Mass. It was the most profoundly meaningful of celebrations. As some of my brother priests said, they had never experienced a congregation so engaged in the rite – thanks to my brothers and sister from Africa.

Frankly, the issues we confront are nothing so trivial as the ceremonial of how the Mass is offered. No, the matter is much profounder. From my grandparents and parents who saw the destruction of the continent in two world wars, financial calamity in the global economic crisis between the wars, the destitution after World War II, I grew up in a generation that understood and had internalised our complete dependence upon God and profoundly lived it…as well as the importance of the Church in our lives and in our society at both the micro and macro levels.

Today…God and the Church are very remote from the lives of most people who live in the first world. For many, if they even consider Him to exist at all, they have no real need of Him.

If you need food, you are not relying on the earth to directly give it to you, as my grandparents did…you go to a grocery and it is arrayed in unimaginable abundance. You don’t actually wonder if the crop that you planted will make or not because of a drought or the blight or what have you.

You are not waiting in a line for bread or hoping for rations, as in decades past in the midst of calamities well beyond your control or the ability of society to manage.

There is a vast social security network that means, instead of turning to the Father and asking for one’s daily bread/needs, one goes to social services for help.

Moreover, when the paradigm is maximisation of pleasure in whatever form one self-determines is best…of the realisation of material and monetary success as primary goals in life…that morality could be self-determined according to non-religious principles…that “spiritual” wellness can be attained apart from any organised religion…then one is confronting a crisis and breakdown on multiple fronts.

Those of us alive saw it beginning in the 60s with the sexual revolution. A concept of human freedom as a license to do anything desired, as long as others were not quantifiably “hurt”, the spread of materialism, “if it can be done, it should be done,” the loss of appreciation of the family as a reality of divine constitution that transcends a social contract theory, and – frankly – the rejection of a vision of the human person derived from theological anthropology.

The Church struggles and will struggle with these crises long after I am dead.

One thing I certainly did see that caused a reduction in Mass attendance was the removal of any societal constraint on the practice of religion. This meant many people ceased to practice because they were liberated from an external expectation to be involved.

To be clear, I never favoured constraint or pretense as a reason for religious practice…not at all. But it was very real in the era before the Council. Society threw that off.

There were some small number of people who saw change in any form through an undifferentiated lens…if they can change the discipline of eating meat on Friday today, the dogma of the Trinity can be wiped out tomorrow"…which is sheer stupidity, but that also says something in itself about elements of the time in which I was young.

It should never be looked back upon through “rose coloured glasses.”

Thank YOU so much!

GBY

 

[edwest2]

I was there before and after Vatican II. Latin was taught in my Catholic high school.The OF didn’t bother me in the least. Obedience to Holy Mother Church was my duty. And no, it had zero to do with people leaving. As far as Latin, it can and should be taught. We had a Missal with the Latin and English on the same page. I knew what I was saying. As far as this rite over that rite, Pope Benedict puts everything in proper context here:

"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.

"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”

Now notice that it was not the parishioners that caused problems. From the Above:

continued…

 

[edwest2]

“This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period…”

Ed

 

[commenter]

Having grown up in the Latin Mass era, I am pleased that my city has a Latin Mass every Sunday. The big difference I notice is the reverence of the attendees. At my parish before Mass, people are gathering in the aisles and/or the vestibule and talking loudly so that it is difficult to say a rosary before Mass begins. That is not the case prior to a Mass in the EF.

Having access to the Traditional Latin Mass is great. Your point about reverence for the Eucharist is valid, and I am often disturbed about it myself. FWIW:

1. There was a massive decline in teaching about the Real Presence starting in the late 1960s. That had an impact, apart from what form of Mass is used.
2. The people who go to the EF in my area tend to be drawn from the very devout, reverent families. They tend to be reverent even when they attend the OF. I don’t mean the people who attend the OF are all irreverent. But those who are irreverent at the OF, would likely behave the same if their parish switched to EF tomorrow.
3. Priests who offer the EF are not drawn at random. They either chose to belong to a religious community that concentrates on this, or they choose to be on rotation for this duty. Most priests don’t offer this Mass, and perhaps may be less attentive to reverence.
   But my pastor does not to my knowlege offer the EF, but he demands quiet and reverence in the Church before and after Mass.

 

[edwest2]

Regarding 1. above. There were dissidents inside and outside the Church who began a full-scale attack in the late 1960s. Who ripped out the Communion/Altar Rails (which are being restored today), or took down the statues, or moved the Tabernacle?

Vatican II? No.

ncregister.com/daily-news/altar-rails-returning-to-use

ncregister.com/daily-news/wisconsin-bishop-puts-tabernacles-in-their-rightful-place

Dissidents did everything they could to confuse and scatter the flock.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

Ed

 

[Brendan]

Not only are there not many priests who actually speak Latin but in many seminaries Latin is not even taught anymore.

That should not have been the case. If a seminary has not done that, it has been in violation of Church teaching

Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant

Pope Benedict - Sacramentum Caritas #62

 

[Brendan]

In my opinion and in my lived experience…no.

Not only did it occasion few people leaving the Church, it occasioned many people entering the Church, as you look at the explosive rate of growth of the Church in Africa, for example, at a rate far greater than before the Council. At the time of the Council, most of the bishops from Africa were European missionaries who were ministering there, including I might add, Marcel Lefebvre. The Church in Africa truly became African after the Council…thanks be to God.

The expansion of the Church in Africa was a beautiful thing to be a part of…as the liturgy became inculturated. It is one of my more special memories of that era.

For one of my milestone anniversaries here in my later years, the expatriate community from Africa came together to organise for me – with the drums, their music, their hymns, and everything else African – the anniversary Mass. It was the most profoundly meaningful of celebrations. As some of my brother priests said, they had never experienced a congregation so engaged in the rite – thanks to my brothers and sister from Africa.
."

I do regular volunteer work in a rural diocese in Tanzania. I am fortunate to stay at the house of the local bishop.

We had a discussion on the differences in liturgy between my parish ( which he as been to) and the liturgies in his diocese.

Our liturgy is well, almost Tridentine in outlook, while the liturgies in this diocese are probably what you experienced

The bishop comment was that each was providing what their society needed the most. In the US, everything is busy and noisy, so the people need to know the peace and tranquility of God.

In his diocese, life is hard, but the pace is much slower. The people need to experience the joy and exhilaration of God.

Hence, according to the bishop, the Spirit provides what each need the most

 

[PJM]

quote Originally Posted by otjm View Post
I am stepping in ahead of Father, but I can only speak to the US.

Polls taken over time show a peak of church attendance, peaking approximately 1957. The started showing a drop-off after that time, but the drop off amounted to approximately 1% per year.

There was no discernible change in the rate of drop-off either during or after Vatican 2, or the institution of the OF.

I have read numerous comments in this forum in the past indicating major numbers of people leaving when the OF was introduced. However, other than personal, anecdotal comments made 30 to 40 years after the alleged exodus, there is no proof of such occurring. Some of those comments have been made by people who disparage the OF; I always consider the source. Hyperbole abounds among some groups, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Without getting into sub groups who have separated themselves off from the Church, if you stop to think about it, where would people go, to go to Mass? Some may have stopped going altogether, but that too is a minority of a minority.

There has been an exodus; but it was not massive at any given time; it was rather a trickle. And that exodus started 12 years before the OF was promulgated.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is easy to fall into, but it is most often not the cause of the matter being considered - here, people either leaving the Church for another ecclesial body or simply no longer going to Mass. And that particularly needs to be conidered in light of the fact that people started dropping off/out 12 years before, and the pattern (that is, the % dropping off/out) is consistent both before and after the event (the OF).end quote

Thanks for sahring, and I’ll do a bit more research

OK, here’s what I found:

3 sites seem to conform my view that POST V II did have a negative effect on Catholicism in the USA

the PEW Report
[1] cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-drops-and-catholicism-is-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

**[2] traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/01/26/before-and-after-vatican-ii-statistics-do-not-lie/
**

I choose this one as it was the most concise

**
“Priests: 1945 = 38,451 1950 = 42,970** 1955 = 46,970 1960 = 53,796 1965 = 58,000

**Priests: 2013 = 38,800 **
Diocesan Priests = 26,500 and Religious = 12,300
Ordinations to the Priesthood: 1965 = 994
Ordinations: 2013 = 511
Seminarians: 1965 = 49,000 Graduate level: = 8325
Graduate level Seminarians: 2013 = 3694
Religious Sisters in the whole world 1973 = 1 million. In 2013 = 721,935.
Parishes: 1965 = 17,637
Parishes: 2013 = 17,413

Mass Attendance in 1965: 65 % of Catholics attended Sunday Mass
2013, Only 24 % of Catholics attend Sunday Mass. “

sugThe average age of priests in the US in 1970 was 35. In 2013 it is around 63. Here is a photo of priests at a funeral in California a month ago.[END QUOTES]gest

CARA
Frequently Requested Church Statistics
[3] cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

TO BE CLEAR,I AM NOT SAYING POST VII IS THE ONLY REASON, JUST A PRIMARY ONE.AMEN!

God Bless you and EACH of us

Patrick

 

[edwest2]

What is missing is the outer social attack on the people’s morals and lifestyles which hit full stride in 1968. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae was met by “…an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…” in 1968.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

This cannot be stressed enough. After about two thousand years, the great attack on the family and morals began in the West and continues to this day. The groups that were founded right after Vatican II organized a series of attacks that increased years after year, decade after decade until today. This is a straight line assault - right up to Bathroom Bills.

And Catholics? Sure, we resisted but the radicals, anarchists and Hippies came into our neighborhoods to sell dope, encourage the use of illegal drugs, often leading to addiction or habitual use, encouraged cohabitation with sex and considered marriage as nothing more than a piece of paper. The opening of Adult Bookstores selling graphic pornography, strip clubs and topless bars in the 1970s cost millions of dollars but high-priced lawyers kept us at bay. And caused the planned sexual addictions. The propaganda campaign called the Women’s Liberation Movement labeled all men - that’s us - as “male chauvenist pigs” and sowed seeds of suspicion and discontent among American housewives (no, I’m not referring to abuse).

The new gospel was to have sex with anyone, smoke dope, live with your girlfriend and ignore the Church and your parents. Nothing anecdotal about it.

There can be NO analysis about life in the West after Vatican II without these vital facts.

Ed

 

[PJM]

What is missing is the outer social attack on the people’s morals and lifestyles which hit full stride in 1968. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae was met by “…an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…” in 1968.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

This cannot be stressed enough. After about two thousand years, the great attack on the family and morals began in the West and continues to this day. The groups that were founded right after Vatican II organized a series of attacks that increased years after year, decade after decade until today. This is a straight line assault - right up to Bathroom Bills.

And Catholics? Sure, we resisted but the radicals, anarchists and Hippies came into our neighborhoods to sell dope, encourage the use of illegal drugs, often leading to addiction or habitual use, encouraged cohabitation with sex and considered marriage as nothing more than a piece of paper. The opening of Adult Bookstores selling graphic pornography, strip clubs and topless bars in the 1970s cost millions of dollars but high-priced lawyers kept us at bay. And caused the planned sexual addictions. The propaganda campaign called the Women’s Liberation Movement labeled all men - that’s us - as “male chauvenist pigs” and sowed seeds of suspicion and discontent among American housewives (no, I’m not referring to abuse).

The new gospel was to have sex with anyone, smoke dope, live with your girlfriend and ignore the Church and your parents. Nothing anecdotal about it.

There can be NO analysis about life in the West after Vatican II without these vital facts.

Ed

Thank you and I AGREE

But it seems to me that each fed of the other

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Don_Ruggero]

quote Originally Posted by otjm View Post
I am stepping in ahead of Father, but I can only speak to the US

Polls taken over time show a peak of church attendance, peaking approximately 1957. The started showing a drop-off after that time, but the drop off amounted to approximately 1% per year

There was no discernible change in the rate of drop-off either during or after Vatican 2, or the institution of the OF

I have read numerous comments in this forum in the past indicating major numbers of people leaving when the OF was introduced. However, other than personal, anecdotal comments made 30 to 40 years after the alleged exodus, there is no proof of such occurring. Some of those comments have been made by people who disparage the OF; I always consider the source. Hyperbole abounds among some groups, and that needs to be taken into consideration

Without getting into sub groups who have separated themselves off from the Church, if you stop to think about it, where would people go, to go to Mass? Some may have stopped going altogether, but that too is a minority of a minority

There has been an exodus; but it was not massive at any given time; it was rather a trickle. And that exodus started 12 years before the OF was promulgated

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is easy to fall into, but it is most often not the cause of the matter being considered - here, people either leaving the Church for another ecclesial body or simply no longer going to Mass. And that particularly needs to be conidered in light of the fact that people started dropping off/out 12 years before, and the pattern (that is, the % dropping off/out) is consistent both before and after the event (the OF).end quote

OK, here’s what I found:

3 sites seem to conform my view that POST V II did have a negative effect on Catholicism in the USA

the PEW Report
[1] cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-drops-and-catholicism-is-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

[2] traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/01/26/before-and-after-vatican-ii-statistics-do-not-lie/

I choose this one as it was the most concise

**
“Priests: 1945 = 38,451 1950 = 42,970** 1955 = 46,970 1960 = 53,796 1965 = 58,000

**Priests: 2013 = 38,800 **
Diocesan Priests = 26,500 and Religious = 12,300
Ordinations to the Priesthood: 1965 = 994
Ordinations: 2013 = 511
Seminarians: 1965 = 49,000 Graduate level: = 8325
Graduate level Seminarians: 2013 = 3694
Religious Sisters in the whole world 1973 = 1 million. In 2013 = 721,935.
Parishes: 1965 = 17,637
Parishes: 2013 = 17,413

Mass Attendance in 1965: 65 % of Catholics attended Sunday Mass
2013, Only 24 % of Catholics attend Sunday Mass. “

sugThe average age of priests in the US in 1970 was 35. In 2013 it is around 63. Here is a photo of priests at a funeral in California a month ago[END QUOTES]gest

CARA
Frequently Requested Church Statistics
[3] cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

TO BE CLEAR,I AM NOT SAYING POST VII IS THE ONLY REASON, JUST A PRIMARY ONE.AMEN!

God Bless you and EACH of us

Patrick

Frankly, your failure to use the style tags properly, combined with your eccentric coloring and bolding, makes it very difficult – and actually impossible for me – to understand what you are trying to say at all – or even which person is speaking

I can’t even tell what it is you are attempting to cite. If I had to take a guess, based on the fact that this is a US based website, it would be that the numbers concern priests in the United States – but unspecified data is a pitiful methodology, from the perspective of this European

“Post Vatican II” is a reference in time to an era, not some event…unless you are making some reference so obtuse that it can’t be known from what you write. Post Vatican II is the era from 1965 to the present

Although, the conclusion it seems to me you are drawing, or trying to draw, is that vocational decline results from the Council

As a priest, I could not disagree more, frankly

Having been in formation work across these years, I think the external opportunities far outweigh everything within the Church

Of course, families are significantly smaller and both sons and daughters are today not encouraged to consider a vocation the way they were in my generation…not surprisingly. Indeed, I have seen it to be quite the opposite. I have seen families positively fight to keep their child from pursuing a vocation…since they’re the only child

Of course, too, there are less contemplative nuns/apostolic sisters in 2016 than there were in 1960. Women today are liberated. They are freed of the constraints placed upon them in past decades. Today, they have access to higher education and a breadth of career choice that was only dreamed of in 1960. A woman today does not have to choose among being a Sister, a secretary, a nurse, a teacher, a librarian, or a hostess; the sky’s the limit for her, literally. She can become an astronaut or a jet fighter pilot

Sociologically, we are in such a different place today that where we were 60 years ago…thanks be to God. And the profound sociological adjustment has nothing to do with the Council

I remember the days of few opportunities and few realistically available paths. Thank God that there are opportunities for the people of today that those of us from yesterday never had

For men…it’s interesting. Obviously, from my formation work, I have significantly more insight there…I also, therefore, see a significantly more complex picture. It’s a very different reality from when I was formed, decades ago

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What is missing is the outer social attack on the people’s morals and lifestyles which hit full stride in 1968. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae was met by “…an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…” in 1968.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

You consider this event unprecedented in Church history? That some two hundred theologians published one page in an American newspaper, that most of the rest of us in the actual world, outside the United States, do not see or even care about?

You should sit in on a good course in Church history focused on either the 10th and 11th centuries or the 16th and 17th centuries. Actually, for that matter, a course focused on 19th century Europe would get you more interesting developments concerning the Church and those in dissent – like kidnapping the Pope, for example

Or you might think about a certain friar who tacked a parchment to a certain in Wittenberg in 1517…on October 31, Pope Francis will be opening our fifth centenary commemoration, as Catholics, of that event. History makes interesting twists and turns

 

[otjm]

Polls taken over time show a peak of church attendance, peaking approximately 1957. The started showing a drop-off after that time, but the drop off amounted to approximately 1% per year.

There was no discernible change in the rate of drop-off either during or after Vatican 2, or the institution of the OF.

I have read numerous comments in this forum in the past indicating major numbers of people leaving when the OF was introduced. However, other than personal, anecdotal comments made 30 to 40 years after the alleged exodus, there is no proof of such occurring. Some of those comments have been made by people who disparage the OF; I always consider the source. Hyperbole abounds among some groups, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

There has been an exodus; but it was not massive at any given time; it was rather a trickle. And that exodus started 12 years before the OF was promulgated.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is easy to fall into, but it is most often not the cause of the matter being considered - here, people either leaving the Church for another ecclesial body or simply no longer going to Mass. And that particularly needs to be conidered in light of the fact that people started dropping off/out 12 years before, and the pattern (that is, the % dropping off/out) is consistent both before and after the event (the OF).end quote

OK, here’s what I found:

3 sites seem to conform my view that POST V II did have a negative effect on Catholicism in the USA

the PEW Report
[1] cruxnow.com/church/2015/05/12/pew-survey-percentage-of-us-catholics-drops-and-catholicism-is-losing-members-faster-than-any-denomination/

**[2] traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/01/26/before-and-after-vatican-ii-statistics-do-not-lie/
**

I choose this one as it was the most concise

**
“Priests: 1945 = 38,451 1950 = 42,970** 1955 = 46,970 1960 = 53,796 1965 = 58,000

**Priests: 2013 = 38,800 **
Diocesan Priests = 26,500 and Religious = 12,300
Ordinations to the Priesthood: 1965 = 994
Ordinations: 2013 = 511
Seminarians: 1965 = 49,000 Graduate level: = 8325
Graduate level Seminarians: 2013 = 3694
Religious Sisters in the whole world 1973 = 1 million. In 2013 = 721,935.
Parishes: 1965 = 17,637
Parishes: 2013 = 17,413

Mass Attendance in 1965: 65 % of Catholics attended Sunday Mass
2013, Only 24 % of Catholics attend Sunday Mass. “

sugThe average age of priests in the US in 1970 was 35. In 2013 it is around 63. Here is a photo of priests at a funeral in California a month ago.[END QUOTES]gest

CARA
Frequently Requested Church Statistics
[3] cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

TO BE CLEAR,I AM NOT SAYING POST VII IS THE ONLY REASON, JUST A PRIMARY ONE.AMEN!

God Bless you and EACH of us

Patrick
dig further and you will find that it is not even a major cause, let alone the primary one.

If you want the primary one, it is the Pill.

I am not going to wage war against you over the matter, but will only say that I have more than one or two sources beyond what I have experienced.

Nothing which you showed had anything to do with the Mass change, or with Vatican 2; they only show that there have been a drop off (and CARA has the statistics as well as PEW and others). The drop-off in Catholic Mass attendances, which started in the mid/late 1950’s, had nothing to do with Vatican 2; but sociologists who have actually studied the “why” of the dropout can and do relate it to the growing use of the Pill.

Coupled with that has been the increasing spread of secularism and related ideology, and that can be traced back to the expanding influence of college and post-college growth. One of the relatively few benefits veterans had after WW2 was the GI Bill, which made college accessible to a far greater number of people who otherwise would not ahve attended. And while not all college professors are wild-eyed liberals who go out of their way to denigrate Church and Religion, there are more than enough of them - and they didn’t all hatch out in the last 30 years.

The drop in the number of priests was not among the older priests; it was by and large among the younger ones, and there were a multiple of reasons for that. Blaming it on Vatican 2 is beyond myopic. Given that so many of them left and got married, one can draw other conclusions without doing damage to one’s logic.

There have been plenty of studies showing how people reacted to Vatican 2, and to the subsequent change in the Mass, but they do not get much if any press. Why? Those who favor both have no reason to care about the studies.

And those who are opposed either V 2 or the Mass changes, or both, are not going to even breath about how well both were accepted.

And so the studies stay in the realm of the academics, and the hierarchy which at times has requested the studies. It really is not all that complicated.

What happened after Vatican 2, and what had nothing to do with it but came out of the unbridled enthusiasm of some, particularly on the liberal end, was the change in catechesis. While there were legitimate reasons to the desire to change catechesis, it became a prime example of the old phrase about throwing out the baby with the bath water. The Baltimore Catechism, rather than being revised, was simply tossed out, and what replaced it couldn’t even qualify as pablum.

And when people are poorly catechized (if at all), it does no good to play a post hoc, ergo propter hoc analysis on it and blame it on V 2 or the change in the Mass.