Non-US Mass Attendance Pre-Vatican II

[Ham1]

Does anyone know about this?

I can’t find statistics on it.

I know we frequently discuss the pre-Vatican II “state of the Church” (Mass attendance, etc.) VS. post-Vatican II. But in those discussions it seems we are usually talking about the state of the Church in the US. I am wondering if, perhaps the Church in Europe (which is really what the hierarchy was concerned with back around Vatican II) was having trouble while at the same time the Church in the US was doing quite well.

Just curious. If anyone has any facts or sources, I sure would appreciate it.

God bless.

 

[CatholicNick]

latin-mass-society.org/figures.htm

 

[Ham1]

Thanks…do you know of any sources that have stats on the rest of Europe?

The English stats are interesting in that the pre-Vatican II numbers show pretty similar declines to the US from 1955 - 1965.

Sadly, it looks like the Church attendance in England is even lower than here.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t think people realize how turbulent the '60s were and just how much the culture changed–I don’t think the Fathers of the Council really could have predicted that–especially after the stable '50s… The individualism, false tolerance and false love, experimentation, rebellion against previous generations, etc. all took a tremendous toll on all of society, including the Church. The Church is built on tradition, that is clinging to what your forefathers believed and did. '60s culture was all about the very opposite–it was about rejecting what they believed, especially in matters of religion. The declines would have taken place regardless.

 

[Genesis315]

Also, Church attendance shouldn’t be the measuring rod. People did not have Jesus Christ enthroned in their hearts even though they showed up at Mass more often. The terrible regimes of the early 20th century could have not risen up in places like Italy, Germany, and elsewhere if Catholics were being all thaat faithful. The Second Vatican Council was all about focusing on evangelization and bringing all those separateed from the Church back into the one fold.

Ecumenical Councils, however, traditionally do not solve problems, they only give direction so that the faithful Catholics can know what their pastors want them to believe and do. Just like how after the Council of Nicea, faithful Catholics knew what to believe about Christ’s divinity, but Arianism was even more widespread for centuries after. The same with the Second Vatican Council. While faithful Catholics have made the extra effort to proclaim the Gospel to all people, indifference and the malaise of agnosticism have grown generally.

 

[MMLJ]

I don’t think people realize how turbulent the '60s were and just how much the culture changed–I don’t think the Fathers of the Council really could have predicted that–especially after the stable '50s… The individualism, false tolerance and false love, experimentation, rebellion against previous generations, etc. all took a tremendous toll on all of society, including the Church. The Church is built on tradition, that is clinging to what your forefathers believed and did. '60s culture was all about the very opposite–it was about rejecting what they believed, especially in matters of religion. The declines would have taken place regardless.

The states/characteristics of which you attribute to the 60’s have occurred throughout Church history , and cannot only be limited to such a small time frame in order to justify the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, that is the ‘status quo’. In any event the 60’s, and ‘most’ that went with it, are long gone and the declines have not. Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/gallup.jpg

 

[MMLJ]

latin-mass-society.org/figures.htm

 

[Ham1]

The states/characteristics of which you attribute to the 60’s have occurred throughout Church history , and cannot only be limited to such a small time frame in order to justify the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, that is the ‘status quo’. In any event the 60’s, and ‘most’ that went with it, are long gone and the declines have not. Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council.

…in the United States. It would be interesting to look at the stats for Europe. I don’t think the Vatican viewed America as the pulse of Catholicism in 1960. At that time, it was totally controlled by European and mostly Italian Cardinals.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The states/characteristics of which you attribute to the 60’s have occurred throughout Church history , and cannot only be limited to such a small time frame in order to justify the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, that is the ‘status quo’. In any event the 60’s, and ‘most’ that went with it, are long gone and the declines have not. Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council.

And the decline some are so eager to blame on the council could easily be blamed on the times.

 

[Genesis315]

The states/characteristics of which you attribute to the 60’s have occurred throughout Church history , and cannot only be limited to such a small time frame in order to justify the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, that is the ‘status quo’. In any event the 60’s, and ‘most’ that went with it, are long gone and the declines have not. Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council.

The problems weren’t the same nor were they on the same scale. There was always at least an appreciation of the sacred and for objective truth–as well as respect and honor for authority. The upheaval in the '60s had its roots in previous times, but it really erupted in that time and it’se lasting effects are disillusionment with anything but materialism and individualism and secularism. Again, the fruits of Nicea I was even more Arianism for centuries. The same goes for the other Christilogical Councils and the heresies they attempted to fight. Were they bad councils? You can’t judge something based on those who don’t follow it. That’s totally irrational.

 

[MMLJ]

And the decline some are so eager to blame on the council could easily be blamed on the times.

Possible but unlikely.
What is undeniable is history, and in our Catholic History we have events such as the Great East -West schism with its disagreements in the Filioque clause and papal primacy of jurisdiction, The *Crusades *that began under the pontificate of Urban II, the Inquisition, and the Reformation and all it entailed including but not limited to abuses, in particular Simony. But the Church endured and continued forward and grew, with the likes of the Counter Reformation, and the Council of Trent (and its re-evangelization. When we come to VC2, there are the declines that are still extant today.

*To say it was the times is inaccurate, I think what you may have meant is that it is ‘The Sign Of The Times’ *that best describes the fruits of The Second Vatican Council.

 

[MMLJ]

The problems weren’t the same nor were they on the same scale. There was always at least an appreciation of the sacred and for objective truth–as well as respect and honor for authority. The upheaval in the '60s had its roots in previous times, but it really erupted in that time and it’se lasting effects are disillusionment with anything but materialism and individualism and secularism. Again, the fruits of Nicea I was even more Arianism for centuries. The same goes for the other Christilogical Councils and the heresies they attempted to fight. Were they bad councils? You can’t judge something based on those who don’t follow it. That’s totally irrational.

Again, the point has been missed. Please review my post#
(Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council).
I do not judge and I have only cited the statistical findings, which obviously cannot be irrational (which is a logical conclusion since these are findings of an unbiased research study). The declines continue at this moment, as we argue about absurdities. We should all work together accept that the TLM numbers are growing (among other categories which also rise) and the Novus Ordo service is in declination. The TLM never left, but is in motion, and shows no sign of waning its inertia
Have no Fear, The TLM is hear!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Again, the point has been missed. Please review my post#
(Statistical studies have shown and reinforced that the starting point of these radical declines were the build up to, during and by end of the Second Vatican Council).
I do not judge and I have only cited the statistical findings, which obviously cannot be irrational (which is a logical conclusion since these are findings of an unbiased research study). The declines continue at this moment, as we argue about absurdities. We should all work together accept that the TLM numbers are growing (among other categories which also rise) and the Novus Ordo service is in declination. The TLM never left, but is in motion, and shows no sign of waning its inertia
Have no Fear, The TLM is hear!

The Novus Ordo is NOT in decline (declination is a geomagnetic term, btw). Masses in the churches in my diocese are full.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Possible but unlikely.
What is undeniable is history, and in our Catholic History we have events such as the Great East -West schism with its disagreements in the Filioque clause and papal primacy of jurisdiction, The Crusades that began under the pontificate of Urban II, the Inquisition, and the Reformation and all it entailed including but not limited to abuses, in particular Simony. But the Church endured and continued forward and grew, with the likes of the Counter Reformation, and the Council of Trent (and its re-evangelization. When we come to VC2, there are the declines that are still extant today.

***To say it was the times is inaccurate, I think what you may have meant is that it is ‘The Sign Of The Times’ ***that best describes the fruits of The Second Vatican Council.

I don’t think you’ve enough authority to state that it WASN’T “the times” as opposed to the council. “Correlation does not prove causation” is the maxim.

 

[burnside]

I was an Altar Boy in the 1950’s in Scotland and,although the churches tended to be full on Sundays,they were not so packed on weekdays.I feel a lot of people turned up because it was the done thing.Back then,very few of my protestant neighbours went to church,but there was a stigma to carry for catholics who did not attend.Nowadays,weekday Masses seem to me to be as well attended as in the fifties.
I remember a workmate with a very Irish name who followed a certain soccer team that was founded by an Irish Marist Brother
in 1888 to feed the poor in the East End of Glasgow when there was no Welfare State and most of his customers were Irish
immigrants who arrived after the Irish Famine.The aforementioned
workmate was described as one who wrapped the Papal Flag around himself on Saturday afternoons when he watched the game,but wrapped the blanket round himself on Sunday mornings.
Admittedly,retired people in their sixties in these times are healthier and many can drive to Church. However,it is possible that some of those people who did not attend the 1950’s Weekday
Masses are the grand-parents of those who don’t attend on sundays now.

 

[MMLJ]

The Novus Ordo is NOT in decline (declination is a geomagnetic term, btw). Masses in the churches in my diocese are full.

The Novus Ordo IS IN DECLINE, as much as you and I would like it not to be. I am very pleased that the diocese you are contained within present with full churches (hopefully during Mass). However, unfortunately this phenomena is not the status quo. BTW, You are correct, declination may be used as you stated as a Magnetic Declination. Where YOU ARE INCORRECT is your perception of the usage of this word in my post. There are approximately 7 Definitions (one of which is the one you are aware of). It is a common mistake by many, but the word IS utilized correctly (consult the Oxford Dictionary). I am sure your intentions were good and Christian in nature and in not to belittle a fellow Catholic. Thank you for your response.
God Bless.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Novus Ordo IS IN DECLINE, as much as you and I would like it not to be. I am very pleased that the diocese you are contained within present with full churches (hopefully during Mass). However, unfortunately this phenomena is not the status quo. BTW, You are correct, declination may be used as you stated as a Magnetic Declination. Where YOU ARE INCORRECT is your perception of the usage of this word in my post. There are approximately 7 Definitions (one of which is the one you are aware of). It is a common mistake by many, but the word IS utilized correctly (consult the Oxford Dictionary). I am sure your intentions were good and Christian in nature and in not to belittle a fellow Catholic. Thank you for your response.
God Bless.

The Novus Ordo is NOT in decline and the evidence you cite cannot reliably be so cited as proof that it is the fault of that Mass anyway, nor can it be cited as proof that that evidence, those factors, are historically the fault of that same Mass or the Second Vatican Council. At my parish alone (and it was not unique in my diocese), a record number of adults were brought into the Church at the Easter Vigil.

You have insufficient expertise to declare the NO in decline or to cite blame accurately.

As for declination, look to the source you yourself cited:

askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=declination&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

 

[MMLJ]

The Novus Ordo is NOT in decline and the evidence you cite cannot reliably be so cited as proof that it is the fault of that Mass anyway, nor can it be cited as proof that that evidence, those factors, are historically the fault of that same Mass or the Second Vatican Council. At my parish alone (and it was not unique in my diocese), a record number of adults were brought into the Church at the Easter Vigil.

You have insufficient expertise to declare the NO in decline or to cite blame accurately.

As for declination, look to the source you yourself cited:

askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=declination&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

That is the compact Oxford: This is a common err, I am probably one of very few that uses a true dictionary

Allow me to enlighten you:

1. A sloping or bending downward.
2. A falling off, especially from prosperity or vigor; a decline.
3. A deviation, as from a specific direction or standard.
4. A refusal to accept.
5. Magnetic declination.
6. Astronomy. The angular distance to a point on a celestial object, measured north or south from the celestial equator.

I do not use the web dictionaries as they are deficient, but I think these are on the web also. I can barely lift my book, it weighs a tonne.
But I due appreciate your humour
Thank you for your response and God bless.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The topic is not about NO Mass attendance, but “Non-US Mass Attendance Pre-Vatican II.” Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

 

[MMLJ]

I don’t think you’ve enough authority to state that it WASN’T “the times” as opposed to the council. “Correlation does not prove causation” is the maxim.

The correct phrase, I assume you meant, is: Correlation does not imply causation. Since this is correct term used in the disciplines of Mathematics and Statistics regarding cause and effect. Let us use this good statement you have brought to our attention.
‘Imply’ means: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement, thus in study of Logic, would make the statement ‘Correlation does not imply causation’ correct in some cases, and thus by Logic, is incorrect in other cases.
In any event, this is the archaic methodology. This statement has been under review for years now and is not a maxim as you have suggested. That is why the preferred statement is:‘Correlation does not necessarily imply causation’. In summation, the use of the statement, by logic, does not support your comments.

The Novus Ordo is NOT in decline (declination is a geomagnetic term, btw). Masses in the churches in my diocese are full.

And by the Logic above I reiterate:
The Novus Ordo IS IN DECLINE, as much as you and I would like it not to be. I am very pleased that the diocese you are contained within present with full churches (hopefully during Mass). However, unfortunately this phenomena is not the status quo. BTW, You are correct, declination may be used as you stated as a Magnetic Declination. Where YOU ARE INCORRECT is your perception of the usage of this word in my post. There are approximately 7 Definitions (one of which is the one you are aware of). It is a common mistake by many, but the word IS utilized correctly (consult the Oxford Dictionary). I am sure your intentions were good and Christian in nature and in not to belittle a fellow Catholic. Thank you for your response.
God Bless.