Italian bishop forbids Latin Mass despite motu proprio

[Sure]

The point of the article was to show that there was not a corresponding drop in attendance in the Protestant churches but rather attendance held steady and possibly started rising during the same period while it was plummeting in the Catholic Church indicating that the main factors were not primarily outside influences like the sexual revolution.

What is also interesting (and tragic) when one looks at the graphs is how suddenly, at a very specific point in time, the plummet begins and continues, which to me would indicate an immediate factor. If it was just the influence of the outside world I would expect the graph to be much more jumpy and/or gradual.

Further, Humanae Vitae reaffirmed a teaching most Catholics were obeying prior to Vatican II. It didn’t suddenly spring something new on them.

Do you have any studies which support your thesis?

Apologies for going off topic…perhaps there should be another thread.

Interesting that the following drops in Mass attendance were also recorded:

1969 - 1980 = Attendance fell from 62% to 52% (-10%)
1958 - 1969 = Attendance fell from 74% to 62% (-12%)

So, the 11 years prior to the new Mass saw a greater reduction than the 11 years after. That doesn’t really support the changed liturgy as the cause of the drop.

And the interview that you linked to with Ken Jones has a tremendous exaggeration in it that, quite frankly, makes me question his credibility. Mr. Jones states:

A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent.

Now, why does he quote 2 studies here? Why not quote both figures from the same study? He could have used both statistics from the same Gallup Poll that he used for 1958. Why didn’t he? Because the Gallup poll had Mass attendance at 46% in 1994 not 26.6%. So, did he try to stay statistically consistent? NO, he picked the lower number to bolster his case. That is total garbage!

 

[otjm]

The point of the article was to show that there was not a corresponding drop in attendance in the Protestant churches but rather attendance held steady and possibly started rising during the same period while it was plummeting in the Catholic Church indicating that the main factors were not primarily outside influences like the sexual revolution.

What is also interesting (and tragic) when one looks at the graphs is how suddenly, at a very specific point in time, the plummet begins and continues, which to me would indicate an immediate factor. If it was just the influence of the outside world I would expect the graph to be much more jumpy and/or gradual.

Further, Humanae Vitae reaffirmed a teaching most Catholics were obeying prior to Vatican II. It didn’t suddenly spring something new on them.

Do you have any studies which support your thesis?

The reason that HV was written was not because of some specualtion that at some time in the future Catholics might use th3 Pill; it was because confessors, bishops and theologians were innundated with questions whether the Pill was acceptable - and the answers being given priopr to HV were all over the map. To say that most were obeying the general teaching - no ABC - is to ignore what was going on once the Pill hit the market.

Statistics are subject to polls, and polls are subject to poor construction of questions which results in skewed findings. I have yet to see a poll that adequately demonstrates the results being proposed.

 

[otjm]

The point of the article was to show that there was not a corresponding drop in attendance in the Protestant churches but rather attendance held steady and possibly started rising during the same period while it was plummeting in the Catholic Church indicating that the main factors were not primarily outside influences like the sexual revolution.

What is also interesting (and tragic) when one looks at the graphs is how suddenly, at a very specific point in time, the plummet begins and continues, which to me would indicate an immediate factor. If it was just the influence of the outside world I would expect the graph to be much more jumpy and/or gradual.

Further, Humanae Vitae reaffirmed a teaching most Catholics were obeying prior to Vatican II. It didn’t suddenly spring something new on them.

Do you have any studies which support your thesis?

Ah, but there was a drop in attendance within Protestant circles; it was and still is within the mainline churches. And my sources of information are from misiters within those mainline groups.

 

[mtr01]

Apologies for going off topic…perhaps there should be another thread.

Interesting that the following drops in Mass attendance were also recorded:

1969 - 1980 = Attendance fell from 62% to 52% (-10%)
1958 - 1969 = Attendance fell from 74% to 62% (-12%)

So, the 11 years prior to the new Mass saw a greater reduction than the 11 years after. That doesn’t really support the changed liturgy as the cause of the drop.

Except that you ignore the very plausible explanation given in the article. If you look at the graph again, there was a drastic surge in Church attendance immediately following World War II. This attendance fall you speak of prior to the new Mass represents a return to the pre-WWII attendance figures.

And the interview that you linked to with Ken Jones has a tremendous exaggeration in it that, quite frankly, makes me question his credibility. Mr. Jones states:

Now, why does he quote 2 studies here? Why not quote both figures from the same study? He could have used both statistics from the same Gallup Poll that he used for 1958. Why didn’t he? Because the Gallup poll had Mass attendance at 46% in 1994 not 26.6%. So, did he try to stay statistically consistent? NO, he picked the lower number to bolster his case. That is total garbage!

The graph itself it based on the Gallup numbers, so it’s not like the article is trying to hide the 46% figure. The reason the other study was used is because it was based on head-count data, as the article plainly states. That way, they could eliminate the bias of people saying they went to Mass, when in reality they didn’t. Presumably, if such head-count data were available in previous studies, that would have been used as well (as it was in the English numbers).

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has gone off topic. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Take any side issues to new or existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you all.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Apologies for going off topic…perhaps there should be another thread.

Interesting that the following drops in Mass attendance were also recorded:

1969 - 1980 = Attendance fell from 62% to 52% (-10%)
1958 - 1969 = Attendance fell from 74% to 62% (-12%)

So, the 11 years prior to the new Mass saw a greater reduction than the 11 years after. That doesn’t really support the changed liturgy as the cause of the drop.

And the interview that you linked to with Ken Jones has a tremendous exaggeration in it that, quite frankly, makes me question his credibility. Mr. Jones states:

Now, why does he quote 2 studies here? Why not quote both figures from the same study? He could have used both statistics from the same Gallup Poll that he used for 1958. Why didn’t he? Because the Gallup poll had Mass attendance at 46% in 1994 not 26.6%. So, did he try to stay statistically consistent? NO, he picked the lower number to bolster his case. That is total garbage!

Thanks to mtr01 for his response.

I’m looking at the graph at Figure 1 and seeing the attendance rate in 1980 at 39%. Maybe you can provide a link to where you got the figures.

I am trying to locate a graph which actually showed the Mass attendance rates trending up in the few years prior to 1965.

Nevertheless, If we were talking just about mere fluctuations before or after Vatican II we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. The point is that the drop in Mass attendance didn’t go down 10% and then stop, it kept going downward to about 25% and has not recovered. That is quite significant.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

This thread has gone off topic. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread. Take any side issues to new or existing threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you all.

Whoops, sorry, I posted before I saw this post.

 

[rpp]

Well, I certainly have not said that. Try reading what I actually have said, and not reading with suspicion and/or anger.

Methinks you assume too much about me.

 

[Sure]

Thanks to mtr01 for his response.

I’m looking at the graph at Figure 1 and seeing the attendance rate in 1980 at 39%. Maybe you can provide a link to where you got the figures.

I am trying to locate a graph which actually showed the Mass attendance rates trending up in the few years prior to 1965.

Nevertheless, If we were talking just about mere fluctuations before or after Vatican II we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. The point is that the drop in Mass attendance didn’t go down 10% and then stop, it kept going downward to about 25% and has not recovered. That is quite significant.

Last post on statistics, I promise!

Brennan, here’s a link to the Gallup data:

cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf