How has VII lowered Mass Attendence and Vocations?

[thistle]

Anyone who wants to know about the crisis needs just one name:
Michael Davies.
This man has written many books explaining all the confusion surrounding Vatican II and the New Mass.

As far as low Mass Attendace and low vocations, the culprit is the New Mass that has secularized the Church.

The New Mass will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the world.

Be careful making sweeping general statements without any foundation.

Here in the Philippines we have more Catholics than the USA but Mass attendence is around 80% so obviously Vatican II and the new Mass has not had any negative (name removed by moderator)act. Also we have lots of priests here and many even go overseas.

 

[ethelzguy]

Be careful making sweeping general statements without any foundation.

Here in the Philippines we have more Catholics than the USA but Mass attendence is around 80% so obviously Vatican II and the new Mass has not had any negative (name removed by moderator)act. Also we have lots of priests here and many even go overseas.

Yes, there are a number of Philipino priests in our diocese.

 

[John_Higgins]

Two word response to original question:
IT HASN'T!!!!

 

[drafdog]

Oddly enough the studies have shown that it was the fallout from the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae that has effected Mass attendance. The Vatican Council had nothing to do with it. The crisis is one of the loss of papal credibility.

Matthew

 

[tcraig]

INondenominational Bible Churches and “Christian Fellowships” are cropping up everywhere. I think that falls in line with earlier posts about authority and today’s folks rejecting it. People are just looking for a feel-good religious social club to be a part of.

As a former protestant, I agree with this. It’s too easy to blame VII for the Church’s problems, when the problems that are present are also present in spades in protestant denominations.

The problem is that it simply isn’t noticed as much in the protestant world because it’s really an “everything goes” type of religion(s). There’s no rules about attending church, getting divorced, using birthcontrol, etc. If you attend a church that has made its own rules (Biblically based, of course ) and you disagree with them then you just find a different church that you’re happier with. Splits along liberal/conservative fault lines happen all the time, especially among the more evangelical churches.

Are you a practicing homosexual who believes that Jesus is nothing but love and wants you to be happy with your “life partner”? There’s a church for you. Believe in a “quiverfull” mentality, and that women should be dresses-only? There’s a church for you, too.

One of the most difficult things for me when I became a Catholic was that I lost the “comfort zone” that my protestant church gave me. It really was, in a way, like a little religious social club, where I was with like-minded fellow Christians. As someone who is more conservative and loves classical music that’s what I looked for whenever I moved to a different location and I needed to find a new church home. If I had been into the blue jean and Christian rock band style of worship, I could have found that, too.

In the Catholic church, we all have to hang together, the wheat and the chaff… If our priest is an aging 60-something hippy and insists on drums and electric guitars at mass (an issue that is a major thorn in my side at the moment ) we don’t get to fire him or start our own little storefront mass.

Sometimes, being a Catholic isn’t “fun” or easy. I think we’re living in an era where many people think it ought to be both.

 

[ProVobis]

I think you’ll find Mass attendance started decreasing in France in the late 50’s. In the U.S. the percentage of Catholics attending Mass started decreasing around 1964.

And who knows how many would be showing up on Sundays at all today if it weren’t a mortal sin to skip Sunday Mass. If the number of Catholics who still abstain from meat is any indication, there would be very few attending Mass today.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Read Michael Rose’s “Good bye Good men” and you will see
why.

I understand that both have lessened in the last 50 years or so–by more or less depending on the source–but it is hard to believe the cause is Vatican II. To me it seems more logical/likely that the two happend simaltaniously, and not in a cause and effect manner.

 

[bobzills]

Vatican II called for very modest reform in the liturgy.
The New Mass or the Missal of Paul VI was a complete revolution and not what the Council Fathers had in mind.

Many bishops after the Council said that if they knew what they were going to get with the New Mass, they would have never voted for it.

In other words, it was both Vatian II and the New Mass which contributed to the lowering of Mass attendance.

 

[childofmary1143]

Oddly enough the studies have shown that it was the fallout from the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae that has effected Mass attendance. The Vatican Council had nothing to do with it. **The crisis is one of the loss of papal credibility.
**
Matthew

I have no doubt that Humanae Vitae had some effect on Mass attendance. However your last sentence has me curious to its meaning. Are you trying to say that Humanae Vitae shouldn’t have been written or is somehow incorrect?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Church attendance has fallen off among main-line Protestants, as well.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

In other words, it was both Vatian II and the New Mass which contributed to the lowering of Mass attendance.

the mass was only part of the problem.
If you read “Good bye-Good men” you will get a good
analysis of why there is a shortage. Allot of the problem has to do with the people responsible at the seminary who rejected candidates as being to orthodox and wanted only men who were open to modernist changes and women in the priesthood to name a few of the problems. I really suggest you read this book.

 

[thecoach]

Vatican II called for very modest reform in the liturgy.
The New Mass or the Missal of Paul VI was a complete revolution and not what the Council Fathers had in mind.

Many bishops after the Council said that if they knew what they were going to get with the New Mass, they would have never voted for it.

So, they didnt read what they were voting for?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

So, they didnt read what they were voting for?

I think the mass of 1965 is more what they thought they were getting. They did not want the mass of 1970 or the current mass.

 

[ethelzguy]

Church attendance has fallen off among main-line Protestants, as well.

One of the most interesting comments from the ND crowd, is that they supposedly “don’t have a doctrine” like “other churches” have.

Not so. How do they wind up with a church to begin with? Perhaps some “like minded” people with “shared beliefs” that hang out together and start a church?

Um, “like minded, shared beliefs”…sounds a bit like a doctrine, even if it’s self-imposed???

 

[Cat]

In spite of a wonderful PR campaign, church attendance has fallen in evangelical Protestant churches, too.

Many of the evangelical churches are losing people. The “sheep stealers” include the non-denoms, the megachurches, and the home church movement.

Also, there is a group of Protestants who teach that the “Church Age” has ended, and that ANY organized Christianity is anti-Christ. As you can imagine, this teaching is very appealing–no demands! Finally you can stay home and it’s BIBLICAL to do so!

I think that a more accurate measure of church “success” is number of converts from non-Christianity, rather than “attendance.” And I think that if you tied up the pastors of the evangelical churches and tickled the truth out of them, you would learn that most of their “new members” are actually transfers from other churches. The only truly “new” converts in many evangelical churches are the children of the members.

I realize that in the Catholic Church, it is a grave sign when people do not attend Mass. It is a rejection of Jesus Himself. But I think a lot of Catholics don’t really understand that. They think they’re just missing “church,” not Jesus.

I think that overall in U.S. society, there is a lack of willingnes to commit to anything. Almost all the old “clubs” (Elks, Eagles, Odd Fellows, and other lodges) are way down in membership. Most “women’s clubs” consist of the old ladies who have been members forever. Choirs, arts clubs, almost any organization is struggling to find new members. People just don’t like to “join” anything to day, because it means “commitment,” and they don’t like that word. It means giving money and time, and it means agreeing wholeheartedly with the organization that you join.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I dont think the new mass is totally to blame. only part of the problem. Bishops and laity walked away from VII thinking a brand new church was created and old dogma, theology and traditons were thrown out to make room for things not called for by the council. A reason for low vocations is that seminaries were rejecting good orthodox men for more liberal and/or homosexual men that would be open to women priests.

Michael Rose points that out in his book.

Anyone who wants to know about the crisis needs just one name:
Michael Davies.
This man has written many books explaining all the confusion surrounding Vatican II and the New Mass.

As far as low Mass Attendace and low vocations, the culprit is the New Mass that has secularized the Church.

The New Mass will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the world.

 

[bobzills]

the mass was only part of the problem.
If you read “Good bye-Good men” you will get a good
analysis of why there is a shortage. Allot of the problem has to do with the people responsible at the seminary who rejected candidates as being to orthodox and wanted only men who were open to modernist changes and women in the priesthood to name a few of the problems. I really suggest you read this book.

Correct. But a lot of these problems accelerated after Vatican II, didn’t they?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Correct. But a lot of these problems accelerated after Vatican II, didn’t they?

yes they did because everyone thought that a new church was created and the barriers came down. Allot priests left the priesthood also I believe because they thought VII would change the celibacy rule.

 

[bobzills]

yes they did because everyone thought that a new church was created and the barriers came down. Allot priests left the priesthood also I believe because they thought VII would change the celibacy rule.

It is not clear to me that this is why many priests left the priesthood after Vatican II. Where is your supporting evidence for this.

 

[John_Higgins]

childofmary1143:

However your last sentence has me curious to its meaning. Are you trying to say that Humanae Vitae shouldn’t have been written or is somehow incorrect?

Maybe drafdog wasn’t, but I am–at least the first part.

Ask yourself a question, what was Paul VI’s last encyclical? That’s right–Humanae Vitae. He was pope for nearly 10 more years and never published another one.

When Bl. Pope John XXIII established the birth control commission in 1963, some hopes were raised that articifical birth control would be permitted by the Church. Even after Pope Paul had added many members to the commission, it gave the Holy Father their recommendations in 1966. He chose not to implement their recommendations (which he was, of course, under no obligation to do).

If he had no intention of permitting birth control for Catholics, hindsight tells me that he would have been much better off leaving the pronouncements of Pius XI in Casti Connubii in place without further comment.

Of course, 1968 was a time of turmoil anyway for the United States and much of the world. Throwing a countercultural encyclical into that mix didn’t help.

He needed to rely on these earlier words and be guided by them:

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.

John