Mass Attendance

[Brennan_Doherty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennan Doherty forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/viewpost.gif
What indicators are you talking about? And while I wholeheartedly agree that catechesis has been poor (and I consider the liturgy to be the primary form of catechesis) how do you reach the conclusion that the form of the Mass has nothing to do with the drop in Mass attendance?

I know I’ve given this link out before but here it is again:

Novus ordo Missae:
The record after thirty years

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

You always trot this one out…why did Mass attendance drop more in the 9 years before the new Mass than in the 9 years following the new Mass???

Quote:
Originally Posted by stmaria forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cak/viewpost.gif
I can’t take your word for it. Where did you get it.

Oops sorry.

Here is the link:

cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf

And, I’m sorry I meant 11 years before and after not 9…

From 1958 to 1969 - 74% to 62% = -12%
From 1969 to 1980 - 62% to 52% = -10%

Since I didn’t have a chance to respond to this, I thought I’d bring up the response in a new thread.

I will continue to trot out this article, along with the interview of Ken Jones, Author of Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

whenever someone says they have indicators that show that the drop in Mass attendance (and pretty much every other statistical indicator of Catholic life and practice) had nothing at all to do with the changes to the liturgy, one of the most seismic events in the Church’s history, along with Vatican II and its aftermath. I will ask, “what indicators?” and then proceed to post these because they are actual studies of the relevant factors.

I do hope people look at the graph that was posted:

cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf

First, the article I cited:

Novus ordo Missae:
The record after thirty years

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

studies Mass attendance over a thirty year period, not a relatively short time period.

Secondly, if one looks at the graph, one sees a downturn from about 1959 – 1961, a slight uptick, then a leveling off until about 1965, and then the plummet starts. One can also look at the graphs in the last link I posted above.

One point is made in this article written in 1966 by Dietrich von Hildbrand:

“But the liturgical “progressives” are not impressed by the difference between permitting and commanding. Nor do they hesitate to authorize changes, such as standing to receive Holy Communion, which the Constitution does not mention at all. The progressives argue that these liberties may be taken because the Constitution is, after all, only the first step in an evolutionary process. And they seem to be having their way. It is difficult to find a Latin mass anywhere today, and in the United States they are practically non-existent. Even the conventual mass in monasteries is said in the vernacular, and the glorious Gregorian is replaced by insignificant melodies.”

Thus it seems as if the banishment of the Latin Mass and the introduction of certain novelties began after the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was published. Further, the downturn of Mass attendance continued past an 11 year period.

 

[Cat]

I don’t think the exodus of the Catholics in the late 60s/early 70s had as much to do with the demise of the TLM as it did with the surge in outreach from the evangelical Protestant churches.

I don’t have any articles to post to support this, but in the 1960s, the evangelical Protestant churches, especially the Pentecostal denominations (e.g., Assemblies of God) began tremendous PR campaigns to grow their churches. These campaigns were often professionally designed and extremely alluring. Often, the evangelical churches held family-friendly festivals, carnivals, or conferences that were fun and exciting for the whole family. People came just to see what all the excitement was about, and ended up staying in the church.

Many of these churches appealed to the emotions of the visitors and members. People would leave everything they knew to join a church that made them “feel good.”

In the 1970s, we saw evangelical churches grow extremely large, swelling by thousands of members. Also, we saw thousands and thousands of new evangelical church plants.

My husband’s Assembly of God church grew from only a few hundred to over 5000 members in ten years.

During the late 1970s, the church we attended in college grew from 100 to 500 people in one semester.

Based on my memories and personal experience, I personally believe that many Catholics left the Catholic Church during this time to begin attending evangelical Protestant churches because they were attracted by the PR campaigns and by the infectious enthusiasm of the members of these churches, who were very agressive in inviting friends to church.

I grew up in and spent over forty years in evangelical Protestant churches, and knew many members who were former Catholics.

I honestly don’t think it was the changes in the Catholic Church that drove people away as much as it was the fantastic PR campaigns of the evangelical Protestant churches.

**Although the theory that the loss of the TLM is what drove the people out, I would suggest the following theory also–many MORE people would have left the Catholic Church had the TLM been left intact and the only option. **

The lure of the new music, the theatrical audio-visual techniques, the entertaining “Biblical” preaching, the opportunities for children and teenagers, the open practice of the sign gifts (speaking in tongues, healings, miracles), and above all, the friendliness and fellowship in the evangelical Protestant churches would have drawn Catholics away from the 1600 year-old rituals.

Please remember that the 60s were a time of general rebellion in society, and Catholics were not immune from this spirit of revolution and rebellion.

And it wasn’t just Catholics who left their churches. Many mainline Protestants (Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, etc.) left their “musty old churches” to join up with the “new and improved” evangelical Protestant churches, too. The mainlines attempted to quell the tide of evacuees by instituting “liberal” policies such as ordaining women and homosexuals, and by supporting “liberal” beliefs such as abortion. This only increased the number of Christians who left these mainline churches for the more conservative evangelical churches.

It is my personal opinion that the institution of the NO actually retained many Catholics who would have left the Church for “greener pastures” in the evangelical Protestant churches.

 

[Sure]

It still seems odd that the sharpest decline on the graph begins in 1966 a full three years before the New Mass was implemented.

While we’re speculating, what caused the uptick in 1976, or the complete leveling off from 1978 - 1987?

Sorry, but there are just too many factors to consider here. The social upheaval was massive.

 

[lak611]

I read the articles that were cited. I still think the social upheaval in the 1960’s does have much to do with declining Mass attendance. The article seems to think that would affect Protestant churches too. However, I believe that many Catholics left after Humanae Vitae was published. Contraceptive usage would not matter to Protestants one way or another, as they had long abandoned their prohibition on the practice. That, combined with the evangelistic efforts by Protestant churches, probably caused many Catholics to leave. Granted, some Catholics used contraceptives in disobedience to the Church and did not leave, but many probably did.

 

[puzzleannie]

If you are going to draw conclusions about the reasons for Mass attendance based on such statistics you will be required to observe, research and account for all factors at work during the time period you are considering. For instance, a correlation between family Mass attendance and child’s participation in parochial school or CCD, should be looked at. The demographics of the group studies should also be looked at.

For instance, in the heyday of parochial schools many children were required to attend as a class on Sunday, sit with their class, and were dropped off, but not accompanied by parents. With the demise of parochial schools, Mass attendance naturally diminished in such areas.

This is only one of many possible factors that should be looked at. Coincidence does not signal causality. In order to assert that end of the Latin Mass resulted in diminished attendance you would have to adjust for other factors. It is and has always been my contention that Mass attendance, and other measures of “participating Catholics” had actually begun to diminish before V2 and the various “reforms” that followed it, that some of the changes were intended to address that sorry trend, and failed to do so.

 

[Sure]

If you are going to draw conclusions about the reasons for Mass attendance based on such statistics you will be required to observe, research and account for all factors at work during the time period you are considering. For instance, a correlation between family Mass attendance and child’s participation in parochial school or CCD, should be looked at. The demographics of the group studies should also be looked at.

For instance, in the heyday of parochial schools many children were required to attend as a class on Sunday, sit with their class, and were dropped off, but not accompanied by parents. With the demise of parochial schools, Mass attendance naturally diminished in such areas.

This is only one of many possible factors that should be looked at. Coincidence does not signal causality. In order to assert that end of the Latin Mass resulted in diminished attendance you would have to adjust for other factors. It is and has always been my contention that Mass attendance, and other measures of “participating Catholics” had actually begun to diminish before V2 and the various “reforms” that followed it, that some of the changes were intended to address that sorry trend, and failed to do so.

Which would be confirmed by the statistics linked in this thread.

You are correct, I think that a wide variety of factors came into play. As many people’s attitudes became more liberal and rebellious, many of them chose to leave the Church and many of those that stayed pushed for very non-traditional liturgies which, in turn, disappointed many of the more traditional minded parishioners.

 

[stmaria]

Which would be confirmed by the statistics linked in this thread.
You are correct, I think that a wide variety of factors came into play. As many people’s attitudes became more liberal and rebellious, many of them chose to leave the Church and many of those that stayed pushed for very non-traditional liturgies which, in turn, disappointed many of the more traditional minded parishioners.

That’s not what the stats show.Attendance was at it’s highest right before Vatican II From your link
cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf

Mass attendance, 1957-58 (74%)
End of Vatican II in 1965** (67%)**

So right before Vatican II attendance was at it’s highest .During Vatican II it began to drop. When Vatican II ended in 1965 it had dropped 7%

From your link:
“Pre-Vatican II Generation Catholics grew up in an era where deliberately failing to attend Sunday Mass or other day of obligation, without good reason, was quite clearly communicated as a mortal sin. For the Vatican II and Post-Vatican II generations this has not been emphasized to the same degree.”

From your link
In** 2003**, Gallup surveys indicated that, on average, 40 percent of Catholics said they attended Mass within seven days of being surveyed (compared to 74 percent in 1958).

So 74% went to Mass in 1958 and only 40% in 2003. That is a huge difference.

 

[latinmasslover]

I personally find it interesting that, among those who attend the TLM, you find few that are pathetically ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Just food for thought.

 

[Joannm]

So right before Vatican II attendance was at it’s highest .During Vatican II it began to drop. When Vatican II ended in 1965 it had dropped 7% >>>

However the new mass was not promulgated until 1967. In 1965 it was still in Latin.

 

[Sure]

That’s not what the stats show.Attendance was at it’s highest right before Vatican II From your link
cara.georgetown.edu/ATTENDPR.pdf

Mass attendance, 1957-58 (74%)
End of Vatican II in 1965** (67%)**

So right before Vatican II attendance was at it’s highest .During Vatican II it began to drop. When Vatican II ended in 1965 it had dropped 7%

From your link:
“Pre-Vatican II Generation Catholics grew up in an era where deliberately failing to attend Sunday Mass or other day of obligation, without good reason, was quite clearly communicated as a mortal sin. For the Vatican II and Post-Vatican II generations this has not been emphasized to the same degree.”

From your link
In** 2003**, Gallup surveys indicated that, on average, 40 percent of Catholics said they attended Mass within seven days of being surveyed (compared to 74 percent in 1958).

So 74% went to Mass in 1958 and only 40% in 2003. That is a huge difference.

I am not arguing in anyway that Mass attendance has not declined. Of course it has!

I am arguing that the implementation of the new Mass in and after 1969 was not the sole (or even substantial) cause of this decline. I support this by the fact that the decline CLEARLY starts well BEFORE the new Mass, so it must have been other things causing it.

And, by the way, I totally agree that a big reason for the continued decline was the lack of catechesis on the importance on Sunday Mass attendance. I wonder if the preaching in the early 60’s began to get very watered down even though the Mass had not yet changed? After all, the same priests saying those TLM’s would have been the same priests who 10 years later started allowing liturgical abuses. Perhaps a not insignificant cause was the poor formation many of these men received in the seminary in the early 50’s.

 

[Sure]

I personally find it interesting that, among those who attend the TLM, you find few that are pathetically ignorant of the Catholic Faith. Just food for thought.

I am not clear on this. How does this relate to the current discussion? I would hope that you are not accusing anyone here of being ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

So right before Vatican II attendance was at it’s highest .During Vatican II it began to drop. When Vatican II ended in 1965 it had dropped 7% >>>

However the new mass was not promulgated until 1967. In 1965 it was still in Latin.

Hi Joanm,

This is why I found this article from Dietrich von Hildebrand interesting. He is writing in 1966:

The Case for the Latin Mass

by Dietrich von Hildebrand

Dietrich von Hildebrand, was one of the world’s most eminent Christian philosophers. A professor at Fordham University, Pope Pius XII called him “the 20th Century Doctor of the Church.” He is the author of many books, including Transformation in Christ and Liturgy and Personality. Reprinted from the October 1966 issue of TRIUMPH

THE ARGUMENTS for the New Liturgy have been neatly packaged, and may now be learned by rote. The new form of the Mass is designed to engage the celebrant and the faithful in a communal activity. In the past the faithful attended mass in personal isolation, each worshipper making his private devotions, or at best following the proceedings in his missal. Today the faithful can grasp the social character of the celebration; they are learning to appreciate it as a community meal. Formerly, the priest mumbled in a dead language, which created a barrier between priest and people. Now everyone speaks in English, which tends to unite priest and people with one another. In the past the priest said mass with his back to the people, which created the mood of an esoteric rite. Today, because the priest faces the people, the mass is a more fraternal occasion. In the past the priest intoned strange medieval chants. Today the entire assembly sings songs with easy tunes and familiar lyrics, and is even experimenting with folk music. The case for the new mass, then, comes down to this: it is making the faithful more at home in the house of God.

Moreover, these innovations are said to have the sanction of Authority: they are represented as an obedient response to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. This is said notwithstanding that the Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy goes no further than to permit the vernacular mass in cases where the local bishop believes it desirable; the Constitution plainly insists on the retention of the Latin mass, and emphatically approves the Gregorian chant. But the liturgical “progressives” are not impressed by the difference between permitting and commanding. Nor do they hesitate to authorize changes, such as standing to receive Holy Communion, which the Constitution does not mention at all. The progressives argue that these liberties may be taken because the Constitution is, after all, only the first step in an evolutionary process. And they seem to be having their way. **It is difficult to find a Latin mass anywhere today, and in the United States they are practically non-existent. Even the conventual mass in monasteries is said in the vernacular, and the glorious Gregorian is replaced by insignificant melodies. **MY CONCERN is not with the legal status of the changes. And I emphatically do not wish to be understood as regretting that the Constitution has permitted the vernacular to complement the Latin. What I deplore is that the new mass is replacing the Latin Mass, that the old liturgy is being recklessly scrapped, and denied to most of the People of God.

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

So, apparently, a number of changes had already been implemented in 1966, perhaps due to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

God bless.

 

[latinmasslover]

I am not clear on this. How does this relate to the current discussion? I would hope that you are not accusing anyone here of being ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

It relates because ignorance of the Faith is why people don’t care to attend Mass. The TLM is very Catholic, and the NO has a protestant appearance. And no, I wasn’t suggestion anybody here is ignorant of the Faith, maybe a little unclear on the doctrine of papal infallibility, but definitely not ignorant. I was referring to the general population of Catholics. Didn’t mean to offend anyone; like I said, it was just food for thought.

 

[Cat]

It relates because ignorance of the Faith is why people don’t care to attend Mass. The TLM is very Catholic, and the NO has a protestant appearance. And no, I wasn’t suggestion anybody here is ignorant of the Faith, maybe a little unclear on the doctrine of papal infallibility, but definitely not ignorant. I was referring to the general population of Catholics. Didn’t mean to offend anyone; like I said, it was just food for thought.

I have already posted about this topic at length in another thread, so I won’t repeat.

But I will say it again–No, No, NO, the NO does NOT have a “Protestant appearance.”

I speak as an ex-evangelical Protestant. The NO Mass would be extremely offensive to most evangelical Protestants.

Some say that the “old” Protestant churches (e.g., the Lutherans) would find the NO familiar. I grant that, but many of the “old” Protestant churches are now using a worship service format that contains no liturgy, and resembles the evangelical Protestant worship service. So I would say that the NO doesn’t have much resemblance to the majority of Protestant worship services.

If you don’t believe me, attend a Protestant worship service this weekend. You will see no resemblance.

 

[latinmasslover]

I have already posted about this topic at length in another thread, so I won’t repeat.

But I will say it again–No, No, NO, the NO does NOT have a “Protestant appearance.”

I speak as an ex-evangelical Protestant. The NO Mass would be extremely offensive to most evangelical Protestants.

Some say that the “old” Protestant churches (e.g., the Lutherans) would find the NO familiar. I grant that, but many of the “old” Protestant churches are now using a worship service format that contains no liturgy, and resembles the evangelical Protestant worship service. So I would say that the NO doesn’t have much resemblance to the majority of Protestant worship services.

If you don’t believe me, attend a Protestant worship service this weekend. You will see no resemblance.

I’d rather rot.

On the other issue, since the Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant, yes, the NO does resemble a Protestant service. I wasn’t referring to a Sunday get-together for feel-good doctrine but an actual Protestant service. Check out the changes Luther made in the liturgy, and the result from those changes. Same thing has happened in the Church since the NO, which is a major cause of her spiral downhill.

Besides, Protestan scholors say that Protestants could pray the NO without flinching.

MG Siegvalt (Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg) "…Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.

Max Thurian (Protestant minister of Taize) “With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic commnities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’d rather rot.

On the other issue, since the Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant, yes, the NO does resemble a Protestant service. I wasn’t referring to a Sunday get-together for feel-good doctrine but an actual Protestant service. Check out the changes Luther made in the liturgy, and the result from those changes. Same thing has happened in the Church since the NO, which is a major cause of her spiral downhill.

Besides, Protestan scholors say that Protestants could pray the NO without flinching.

MG Siegvalt (Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg) "…Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.

Max Thurian (Protestant minister of Taize) “With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic commnities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church.”

They bear no resemblance to the protestant worship services of my childhood (I WAS a protestant who attended ACTUAL protestant services). They have resemblances to the Lutheran and Anglican services because they have common roots in western liturgical history. The Lutherans and Anglicans ARE, after all, liturgical churches, ie, churches with a formal style of worship and they didn’t throw out everything in the making of their liturgies.

 

[AJV]

MG Siegvalt (Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg) "…Nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.

Max Thurian (Protestant minister of Taize) “With the New Liturgy, non-Catholic commnities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church.”

Given the propensity of Internet quotes to turn out otherwise (and the varied versions one finds of the same quote), it would be good if someone could say that they actually verified this quote in the original article. I’m happy to take any forum-ers word for it.

 

[Sure]

Given the propensity of Internet quotes to turn out otherwise (and the varied versions one finds of the same quote), it would be good if someone could say that they actually verified this quote in the original article. I’m happy to take any forum-ers word for it.

Hmmm…when you google the entire quotation, all you get are some “out there” sites but no mention of when, where or in what publication this statement ever appeared.

 

[AJV]

Hmmm…when you google the entire quotation, all you get are some “out there” sites but no mention of when, where or in what publication this statement ever appeared.

The attribution I have seen is to the French Catholic publication La Croix, April '69.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It still seems odd that the sharpest decline on the graph begins in 1966 a full three years before the New Mass was implemented.

While we’re speculating, what caused the uptick in 1976, or the complete leveling off from 1978 - 1987?

Sorry, but there are just too many factors to consider here. The social upheaval was massive.

One should of course look at the whole decline not just a partial decline or spike. Let us not forget the changes were already in the works years (i.e. greater than three years) before their implementation. Actually, there are many factors yes, but not beyond the scope of visualization, since we are considering mass attendence, which has obviously decreased in many, many churches. One need not go far but to as many parishes within a reasonable locale, and verify it. I am sure some will show no decline, maybe few have increase, but most will have decline, that is far from negligible. I have verified in my Archdiocese (within a population exceeding 7 million) and confirmed it with several priest (in both the Tirdentine Mass and the Novus Ordo service). And studies have already displayed it for you (see links posted).