Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[otjm]

Well, the reason I asked was because several people have brought up the traditional, old-school Catholics who stopped going to mass out of frustration with the VII changes. That suprised me, and I was curious how these people might have reconciled the whole missing mass = mortal sin thing.

That has been my question too, for several reasons; it is presumed that thye (the older generation) were the ones who dropped out, and that they dropped out quickly, and they dropped out because of the changes.

Statistical Mass attendance numbers show the drop off started before the Mass changes by at least a decade; do not show a sudden drop off, and upon closer examination, show that their children, and their grandchildren are the ones not attending the most.

One other thing that helps to keep things in perspective is that some people have faith; others have religion. Faith is a real belief in and relationship with God. Religion may include a belief in God, but the faith portion is much weaker; what one really has is an inculturation coupled with, at times, fears; fears such as the “I’m going to go to hell if…”. If that part weakens, or the inculturation is not deep or is weakend, it is not as spectacular a step to slack off from Mass.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That has been my question too, for several reasons; it is presumed that thye (the older generation) were the ones who dropped out, and that they dropped out quickly, and they dropped out because of the changes.

Statistical Mass attendance numbers show the drop off started before the Mass changes by at least a decade; do not show a sudden drop off, and upon closer examination, show that their children, and their grandchildren are the ones not attending the most.

One other thing that helps to keep things in perspective is that some people have faith; others have religion. Faith is a real belief in and relationship with God. Religion may include a belief in God, but the faith portion is much weaker; what one really has is an inculturation coupled with, at times, fears; fears such as the “I’m going to go to hell if…”. If that part weakens, or the inculturation is not deep or is weakend, it is not as spectacular a step to slack off from Mass.

Here are the actual graphs so that people can discern for themselves whether or not there was a strong drop off (not a fluctuation) around 1965 which logically coincides with a seismic event in the Church (the implementation of Vatican II. Scroll down to the second graph):

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

Here are some more graphs with an accompanying article:

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

I think this will show that the real drop off (not a fluctuation which held steady during Vatican II) occurred in 1965.

 

[I_Believe]

Here are the actual graphs so that people can discern for themselves whether or not there was a strong drop off (not a fluctuation) around 1965 which logically coincides with a seismic event in the Church (the implementation of Vatican II. Scroll down to the second graph):

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

Here are some more graphs with an accompanying article:

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

I think this will show that the real drop off (not a fluctuation which held steady during Vatican II) occurred in 1965.

Sheesh, lucky kid I was. A lot of stuff is coming back to me now. I was seven years old in '65 (second grade), and fourteen in '72.

I don’t remember what grade it was, but it was between '65 and '70, probably closer to '70 , that we had a music teacher, a nun, that brought in a guitar and taught us to sing Blowin In The Wind. We sang it before Mass one weekday morning. At least I think it was before mass.

Anyhow, that second graph is kind of haunting to me, because many of my friends from grade school and myself, had stopped going to Sunday Mass by '72, the first year of High school for most of us. (well, those who’s parents didn’t make them go)

This is all bumming me out, because your post now has me thinking we who stopped going to Mass, may have been examples of the VII changes.

The bottom line is, a person stops going to mass because he/she has lost the faith, or in our case, may never have had a strong enough faith.

Were my friends and myself a product of the times, or the result of poor spiritual guidance ?

I wish I could locate some of the faculty from my grade school who are still living. I’d like to ask them questions such as, how did the VII changes affect our parochial schools ? Was it immediate ?

Our parents and family have much to do with shaping our faith as children, but the schools have a huge role also. At least my parents and family’s Faith left enough impression on me to find my way back.

 

[I_Believe]

Another thing just dawned on me. I may very well have been Confirmed at a '65 Missal Mass. I’ve got a little four page guide to the peoples reponses, titled Approved Text For The Ordinary Parts Of The Mass Pertaining To The People : Approved by the national Conference of Bishops of U.S. , April 2, 1964
I found it in my father’s things after he passed away.

Some of the peoples responses were latin and some were in english.

Wow, all this was starting as I entered grade school.

Bummer

 

[otjm]

Here are the actual graphs so that people can discern for themselves whether or not there was a strong drop off (not a fluctuation) around 1965 which logically coincides with a seismic event in the Church (the implementation of Vatican II. Scroll down to the second graph):

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

Here are some more graphs with an accompanying article:

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

I think this will show that the real drop off (not a fluctuation which held steady during Vatican II) occurred in 1965.

As noted, the graphs do not show a “strong dropoff”. They show a drop of several points, and my original question still applies; if the change in the Mass was so dramatic, and caused such a large drop off , how do you explain the drop off that occured before Vatican 2 - a drop off of
7% in about 7 years? Looking at the chart there aree other points where a dropoff has occured similar to the one after the introduction of the OF; how do you explain that?

In short, the thesis that the change in the Mass is the cause of the loss of attendance, is the sole source, is the major source, or variations on the theme simply is not shown by the statistics nor does it take into consideration the plethora of other issues at paly at the time.

I do not quesion in the least that some people left over the issue. I simply disagree that it was anywhere near the impetus of people leaving the Church that you continue to insist it was, nor do I agree that it was the cause of large numbers to leave the Church.

The graph shows a continual decline from 1958, with points along the way that vary by several percentage points. There are no ten, fifteen, twenty or more point drops in the graph that are attributable to single issues.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

As noted, the graphs do not show a “strong dropoff”. They show a drop of several points, and my original question still applies; if the change in the Mass was so dramatic, and caused such a large drop off , how do you explain the drop off that occured before Vatican 2 - a drop off of
7% in about 7 years? Looking at the chart there aree other points where a dropoff has occured similar to the one after the introduction of the OF; how do you explain that?

In short, the thesis that the change in the Mass is the cause of the loss of attendance, is the sole source, is the major source, or variations on the theme simply is not shown by the statistics nor does it take into consideration the plethora of other issues at paly at the time.

I do not quesion in the least that some people left over the issue. I simply disagree that it was anywhere near the impetus of people leaving the Church that you continue to insist it was, nor do I agree that it was the cause of large numbers to leave the Church.

The graph shows a continual decline from 1958, with points along the way that vary by several percentage points. There are no ten, fifteen, twenty or more point drops in the graph that are attributable to single issues.

First, anyone can look at the graphs themselves and decide what is a drop and what is or is not significant.

I don’t think there is any need to explain fluctuations in the graphs. Regardless, there is nothing at all in 1957-58 that I know of (either in or out of the Church) that would explain a drop, (even if it needed explaining). Maybe it reached a height after the war and then settled.

And of course after that 7% drop it upticked again to about 70% in 1960 and then held steady at that rate for about *five years *before it headed downward around 1965.

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

As Kenneth C. Jones has noted:

“Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. 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. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.”

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

Again, however, one can look at the graphs for themselves.

I do not think the new liturgy is the sole cause of the drop in Mass attendance, although I do think that what is done by the Church more immediately affects Catholics in regards to their practice of the faith than any other factor, particularly in areas like liturgy. Nevertheless, I do think the changes in the liturgy (and other changes) left Catholics more vulnerable to societal trends.

 

[Sure]

First, anyone can look at the graphs themselves and decide what is a drop and what is or is not significant.

I don’t think there is any need to explain fluctuations in the graphs. Regardless, there is nothing at all in 1957-58 that I know of (either in or out of the Church) that would explain a drop, (even if it needed explaining). Maybe it reached a height after the war and then settled.

And of course after that 7% drop it upticked again to about 70% in 1960 and then held steady at that rate for about *five years *before it headed downward around 1965.

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

As Kenneth C. Jones has noted:

“Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. 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. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.”

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

Again, however, one can look at the graphs for themselves.

I do not think the new liturgy is the sole cause of the drop in Mass attendance, although I do think that what is done by the Church more immediately affects Catholics in regards to their practice of the faith than any other factor, particularly in areas like liturgy. Nevertheless, I do think the changes in the liturgy (and other changes) left Catholics more vulnerable to societal trends.

Ken Jones is a hack. There is CARA data for 1994 which is what he used for the 1958 stat, but he chose to use ND data instead which states 26.6%. The CARA data which he should have used if he wanted to be consistent, says 47%. Why did he use ND? Because it makes his case appear stronger.

As for why Mass attendance started to decline in 1958, it’s interesting that divorce rates started rising in 1958. Then went up faster in the late 60’s then more in the 70’s. It is a virtual mirror reverse image of mass attendance. Which makes me think that far more likely than a liturgical change, the cause was societal upheaval with increased divorce, wealth and the sexual revolution.

 

[otjm]

First, anyone can look at the graphs themselves and decide what is a drop and what is or is not significant.

I don’t think there is any need to explain fluctuations in the graphs. Regardless, there is nothing at all in 1957-58 that I know of (either in or out of the Church) that would explain a drop, (even if it needed explaining). Maybe it reached a height after the war and then settled.

And of course after that 7% drop it upticked again to about 70% in 1960 and then held steady at that rate for about *five years *before it headed downward around 1965.

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

Which, as I have pointed out, is about the time of the explosion from Humanae Vitae; I am not aligning the two; but I think the explosion of dissent from theologians, which was picked up by priests - who are the main line confessors - had more to do with overall Mass attendance change than did the changes to the rubrics of the Mass and the introduction of the vernacular.

As Kenneth C. Jones has noted:

“Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. 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. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.”

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

And if he was selling cars, this would be called bait and shift. He has compared two different studies, with two different methodologies, different questions, and who knows what else, to prove his point. Since he wanted to quote the Gallup poll for his starting point, let’s look at the Gallup poll for the ending point also; that gives us something in the range of 46 to 47%. A tad bit different than Ken’s 26.6 %. Which one is correct? Without pulling both of the polls apart to determine what faults or biases may be at play, one cannot answer. Depending on how the questions were phrased, and whether or not the same questions were asked in the Gallup poll, one cannot determine the worthiness of it; and given the two vastly different responses between Notre Dame and Gallup, it would behoove any intelligent individual relying on either or both of the polls to ask a whole lot of questions before presuming to compare the two. And I see no evidence that he even questioned the two; it looks more like he simply went shopping to find the answer he wanted, or the polls that showed the most change.

I do not think the new liturgy is the sole cause of the drop in Mass attendance, although I do think that what is done by the Church more immediately affects Catholics in regards to their practice of the faith than any other factor, particularly in areas like liturgy. Nevertheless, I do think the changes in the liturgy (and other changes) left Catholics more vulnerable to societal trends.

I will not enter into an arguement about the impact of liturgy on those in the pews. But I do maintain that the dumb-down in catechesis, the erosion of moral theology (especially as it gets through to the end user - the folks who are/should be in the pew), the wholesale dismissal of authority by those in and out of the Church, and the general malaise in society is having far more impact on the last two generations, and those in the future than whether or not we follow the EF or the OF or both or a hybrid.

We have some folks who seem to be laser focused on the liturgy. I do not mean to make light of that; but with somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 abortions a year, most of which are out of wedlock engendered (read, sexual license), the breakdown of the sanctity of marriage (including, but most definitely not limited to the homosexual issue), and the secualrization of society, I think we have much bigger fish to fry. It is not that there are no issues about the liturgy; it is just a feeling that we are arguing about this while Rome (society) burns. If our sons and daughters, or our grandchildren couldn’t care less about the Church - EF or OF - because they are more interested in “friends with benefits”, then what we have is a massive failure to communicate. When about 21% of those in the 18 to 30 age group are even coming to Mass, maybe, just maybe, the issue is not the EF vs. the OF??? Do we really think that the EF is going to rescue the other 80% when they are not even setting foot in the door of a church, in large part because (I strongly suspect) they intrinsically know their lifestyle is the antithesis of a life involving Mass on Sunday???

Maybe some of us do. In that case, I have some really great beachfront property for sale in Arizona…

 

[SFD]

SFD:

TMC:

don’t think the workings of the commission were ever released. All we have is the word of the participants that HV was not what they recommended. There are any number of theological arguments on both sides of the issue; there are a couple lively threads on the topic right now.

Well, what are these arguments and where can one actually find them? I have heard this many times and no one has ever produced them.

SFD

TMC and ojtm,

Where are these theological arguments to be found? I have seen this claim many times now and no one can produce any sources for this. Ojtm made this same claim on a previous thread too…and he has never produced any sources for these “theological arguments” and exactly who was making them.

SFD

 

[palmas85]

First, anyone can look at the graphs themselves and decide what is a drop and what is or is not significant.

I don’t think there is any need to explain fluctuations in the graphs. Regardless, there is nothing at all in 1957-58 that I know of (either in or out of the Church) that would explain a drop, (even if it needed explaining). Maybe it reached a height after the war and then settled.

And of course after that 7% drop it upticked again to about 70% in 1960 and then held steady at that rate for about *five years *before it headed downward around 1965.

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

As Kenneth C. Jones has noted:

“Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. 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. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.”

unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

Again, however, one can look at the graphs for themselves.

I do not think the new liturgy is the sole cause of the drop in Mass attendance, although I do think that what is done by the Church more immediately affects Catholics in regards to their practice of the faith than any other factor, particularly in areas like liturgy. Nevertheless, I do think the changes in the liturgy (and other changes) left Catholics more vulnerable to societal trends.

The drop off really started around 56 or so. Why? In 1955, tremendous changes to the liturgies for Palm Sunday, the Easter Tridum and the Vigil of Pentecost.liturgy were made by Pope Pius XII. If you remember the old ceremonies you know what I mean. The changes were so extensive that most people wouldn’t even recognize them these days, and not only because of the times when they were celebrated being radically altered. Many saw this as the opening of the gates which led to the wholescale carnage that ensued after Vatican II, particularly in the years after 1967, when most places started using the new liturgy exclusively,

But honestly it really goes back further than that. By the late 1800’s liberalism and modernism became strong forces within the Protestant sects. Beliefs changed as new scholarship pointed towards conclusions previously unheard of concerning Christ, Christianity and Scripture Many progressive thinking Catholics also felt the stirrings of liberalism and modernism and dreamed of the day when the Catholic Church would throw off its shackles and join the modern progressive thinking world.

These stirrings were very strong among the Priesthood the religious in general Theological professors as well as in Seminaries , and directly led to Pope Saint Pius X issuing his Oath against Modernism in 1910. Many of those required to take the Oath allegedly hated it as they felt limited their intellectual growth as well as the progressive application of Catholicism It is probably no small wonder then that it was rescinded in the general euphoria of the new springtime in 1967.

It is interesting to speculate on how much of the reform at Vatican II and afterward came about because of the hatred felt towards the Oath and conservatism in general.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Latin:thumbsup:

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ken Jones is a hack. There is CARA data for 1994 which is what he used for the 1958 stat, but he chose to use ND data instead which states 26.6%. The CARA data which he should have used if he wanted to be consistent, says 47%. Why did he use ND? Because it makes his case appear stronger.

As for why Mass attendance started to decline in 1958, it’s interesting that divorce rates started rising in 1958. Then went up faster in the late 60’s then more in the 70’s. It is a virtual mirror reverse image of mass attendance. Which makes me think that far more likely than a liturgical change, the cause was societal upheaval with increased divorce, wealth and the sexual revolution.

So you’ve read his book and concluded he was a hack? (I was quoting an interview with him.)

I think some of the differences in surveys may depend on whether they are polls or examinations of parish records.

Again, the decline in 1958 did not continue. It stopped, upticked, and then held steady for five years until 1965.

The drop starting in 1965 had no such leveling off. It did fluctuate a bit in the mid 70’s but the trend continued downard.

Further, societal influences are more remote than changes in the liturgy which are immediate. It’s also interesting to note that it’s not just Mass attendance that was affected. Every area of Catholic life was affected from baptisms to conversions to vocations. And, again, the liturgy affects all Catholics across the board whether they are laypeople or monks. It’s not the only cause, there was bad catechesis, the stripping of the churches, and other issues as well.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Which, as I have pointed out, is about the time of the explosion from Humanae Vitae; I am not aligning the two; but I think the explosion of dissent from theologians, which was picked up by priests - who are the main line confessors - had more to do with overall Mass attendance change than did the changes to the rubrics of the Mass and the introduction of the vernacular.

The changes to the liturgy are far more immediate and affect all Catholics everywhere. And I don’t even know why there would be much of a connection between dissenting theologians and Mass attendance.

And if he was selling cars, this would be called bait and shift. He has compared two different studies, with two different methodologies, different questions, and who knows what else, to prove his point. Since he wanted to quote the Gallup poll for his starting point, let’s look at the Gallup poll for the ending point also; that gives us something in the range of 46 to 47%. A tad bit different than Ken’s 26.6 %. Which one is correct? Without pulling both of the polls apart to determine what faults or biases may be at play, one cannot answer. Depending on how the questions were phrased, and whether or not the same questions were asked in the Gallup poll, one cannot determine the worthiness of it; and given the two vastly different responses between Notre Dame and Gallup, it would behoove any intelligent individual relying on either or both of the polls to ask a whole lot of questions before presuming to compare the two. And I see no evidence that he even questioned the two; it looks more like he simply went shopping to find the answer he wanted, or the polls that showed the most change.

I think the polls are different based on whether they are opinon polls or are examining parish records. I would tend to trust parish records more.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I will not enter into an arguement about the impact of liturgy on those in the pews. But I do maintain that the dumb-down in catechesis, the erosion of moral theology (especially as it gets through to the end user - the folks who are/should be in the pew), the wholesale dismissal of authority by those in and out of the Church, and the general malaise in society is having far more impact on the last two generations, and those in the future than whether or not we follow the EF or the OF or both or a hybrid…

I think poor (or rather, impoverished) liturgy, poor catechesis, and other ills go hand in hand. It is incongruous to have strong, doctrinal teaching and poor liturgy at the same time.

I would also argue that strong liturgy (including the homilies) is important as that is how the faith is imparted to most Catholics. And, as Cardinal Ottaviani noted,

“The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.”

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

Or, as the famous saying goes, Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Or, as I believe Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, “If you do not act as you believe, you will end up believing as you act.”

There are no bigger fish to fry than how we worship. I don’t think anyone has said it better than Pope Pius XI in the encyclical on the Feast of Christ the King:

1. …For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year–in fact, forever. The Church’s teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man’s nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God’s teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11qp.htm

He goes on further, but not enough space to allow it all.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

We have some folks who seem to be laser focused on the liturgy. I do not mean to make light of that; but with somewhere between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 abortions a year, most of which are out of wedlock engendered (read, sexual license), the breakdown of the sanctity of marriage (including, but most definitely not limited to the homosexual issue), and the secualrization of society, I think we have much bigger fish to fry. It is not that there are no issues about the liturgy; it is just a feeling that we are arguing about this while Rome (society) burns. If our sons and daughters, or our grandchildren couldn’t care less about the Church - EF or OF - because they are more interested in “friends with benefits”, then what we have is a massive failure to communicate. When about 21% of those in the 18 to 30 age group are even coming to Mass, maybe, just maybe, the issue is not the EF vs. the OF??? Do we really think that the EF is going to rescue the other 80% when they are not even setting foot in the door of a church, in large part because (I strongly suspect) they intrinsically know their lifestyle is the antithesis of a life involving Mass on Sunday???

Maybe some of us do. In that case, I have some really great beachfront property for sale in Arizona…

Regarding young people (or anyone for that matter) the liturgy, art, and architecture are paramount because (if done well) they attract people to the Faith, and cause and enable them to be drawn in deeper. Fr. George Rutler made an apropos comment:

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into criticism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108)

One final quote from the book Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a foreword for and written by Monsignor Klaus Gamber:

"The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, …”

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The drop off really started around 56 or so. Why? In 1955, tremendous changes to the liturgies for Palm Sunday, the Easter Tridum and the Vigil of Pentecost.liturgy were made by Pope Pius XII. If you remember the old ceremonies you know what I mean. The changes were so extensive that most people wouldn’t even recognize them these days, and not only because of the times when they were celebrated being radically altered. Many saw this as the opening of the gates which led to the wholescale carnage that ensued after Vatican II, particularly in the years after 1967, when most places started using the new liturgy exclusively,

But honestly it really goes back further than that. By the late 1800’s liberalism and modernism became strong forces within the Protestant sects. Beliefs changed as new scholarship pointed towards conclusions previously unheard of concerning Christ, Christianity and Scripture Many progressive thinking Catholics also felt the stirrings of liberalism and modernism and dreamed of the day when the Catholic Church would throw off its shackles and join the modern progressive thinking world.

These stirrings were very strong among the Priesthood the religious in general Theological professors as well as in Seminaries , and directly led to Pope Saint Pius X issuing his Oath against Modernism in 1910. Many of those required to take the Oath allegedly hated it as they felt limited their intellectual growth as well as the progressive application of Catholicism It is probably no small wonder then that it was rescinded in the general euphoria of the new springtime in 1967.

It is interesting to speculate on how much of the reform at Vatican II and afterward came about because of the hatred felt towards the Oath and conservatism in general.

palmas 85,

Really interesting points here. And I certainly would agree about the currents of modernism gaining ground in the Church. Jonathan Robinson has written a book called, “The Mass And Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward”. Here is a description:

Many in the Church have accepted modernity in their effort to speak to the modern world, and not nearly enough attention has been given to trying to disentangle the complex of ideas and half-formulated convictions that constitute this mind-set which is in fact contrary to Christianity.

The first aim of this book is to examine the origins and present day influence of modernity, and then to argue that there is nothing in the Christian’s concern for the modern world that requires accepting this damaging mind-set in connection with the highest form of worship, the Mass.

amazon.com/Mass-Modernity-Walking-Heaven-Backward/dp/1586170694/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201750802&sr=8-3

Also, in regards to the changes to the liturgy you referred to, it’s interesting to note that Evelyn Waugh was extremely displeased with the very changes you are noting and wrote to Cardinal Hume about it. Their letters are contained in the book,

A Bitter Trial: Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan on the Liturgical Changes

Description: For the last decade of his life, Evelyn Waugh experienced the changes being made to the Church’s liturgy to be nothing short of “a bitter trial.”

theabbeyshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=33

However, while acknowledgeing the trial the liturgical changes were for people like Evelyn Waugh, I am wondering how much they might have affected the drop off in Mass attendance from about 57/58 - 1960. I wonder since the changes, while significant, only seemed to affect a portion of the Church’s liturgy, such as the Easter week, and not the entire year. Your point is interesting and worth some thought, though.

 

[Sure]

So you’ve read his book and concluded he was a hack? (I was quoting an interview with him.)

I think some of the differences in surveys may depend on whether they are polls or examinations of parish records.

Again, the decline in 1958 did not continue. It stopped, upticked, and then held steady for five years until 1965.

The drop starting in 1965 had no such leveling off. It did fluctuate a bit in the mid 70’s but the trend continued downard.

Further, societal influences are more remote than changes in the liturgy which are immediate. It’s also interesting to note that it’s not just Mass attendance that was affected. Every area of Catholic life was affected from baptisms to conversions to vocations. And, again, the liturgy affects all Catholics across the board whether they are laypeople or monks. It’s not the only cause, there was bad catechesis, the stripping of the churches, and other issues as well.

The decline is still there starting in 1958. It’s not as severe, but it’s there.

What of the inverse climb of divorce rates among Catholics and non-catholics alike? Why does it mirror the mass attendance figures so very closely? Just coincidence?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I would tend to trust parish records more.

Unfortunately, parish records are not always a good gauge for Mass attendance. Although I am not a pastor myself, I know many pastors who routinely thin their parish registrations based upon whether or not there was any activity (read “donations”) over the past year. This keeps the number of parishioners lower so that they will not be assessed too high for the annual bishop’s appeal and other diocesan taxes. If a Catholic who lives within the parish boundaries wants a wedding or a baptism, and they haven’t used envelopes within the past year (whether or not they attend Mass weekly), they are re-registered, making it appear that there is a steady stream of “new parishioners” when in fact there may be relatively little activity. The current model used within many parishes is hat of the small business, and many numbers games are employed.

Pastorally speaking, low Mass attendance is at a crisis level today. Many parishioners attend Mass one, two, or three times a month, but not every week, and see nothing wrong with missing “occasionally” (if there is something more important to go to, like a sporting event), even though Holy Mother Church consistently teaches that it is a grave obligation (i.e., binding under the pain of mortal sin) to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. And when a priest admonishes his congregation, even quite gently, concerning the gravity of this obligation, it is usually met with a great deal of hostility.

It would be an oversimplification to say that the NO is responsible for declining Mass attendance. There were so many changes made without explanation in the 1960’s --regarding the Eucharistic fast, abstinence from meat, laws of fasting during Lent --as well as within the Mass, that many Catholics seemed to get the impression that all Catholic laws are arbitrary, and we can pick and choose from whatever we want. Hence, as Pope John Paul II put it, we have a crisis of obedience within the Church today.

In my experience, most of the people who regularly attend the TLM have already come to the conclusion that their relationship with God needs to be the most important thing in their lives. Many make great sacrifices to attend the TLM, driving for an hour or more, many with small children, to attend the Mass. Many are escaping irregular NO liturgies that they have found in their own parishes. In short, the percentage of committed Catholics attending any given TLM is probably much higher than what you find at your typical NO parish.

This is not to say there are not many, many committed Catholics attending NO Masses --there are! Some are travel great distances to hear the NO offered the way the Church intends and to hear an orthodox homily. Some stay in less than perfect circumstances because they know the value of the Mass. The Mass under either form has a general Mass fruit of infinite value, and to receive the Eucharist is a gift of inestimable worth.

My problem with the NO is not that it cannot be offered beautifully, but rather that it can be offered in a manner that does not adequately capture the sacredness inherent to the Holy Sacrifice
–rock Masses, folk Masses, polka Masses, Masses with liturgical dance–
are possible, and technically nothing has been done contrary to law. However, as we have all experienced, liturgical abuse is the norm today, and when you find a NO Mass where the priest offers it as the Church intends, you find the exception which proves the rule.

Because so many people have fought so hard to preserve the TLM, when you find one offered, it is usually quite reverent and according to the rubrics. The priests who offer it are often marginalized from many of their brother priest, who (as I was told by one of my brother priests), see it as the Mass “of schismatics and lunatics.” As I understand it, the Masses offered before Vatican II were often less than by the book, but since it was in Latin and the priest was facing away, few realized any abuse was occurring.

Pope Benedict XVI has, in my opinion, brilliantly suggested that perhaps the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass can mutually enrich each other, leading to greater reverence and respect for the rubrics within the typical NO Mass. It shouldn’t be about a competition between the NO and the TLM, but rather what leads more people to holiness.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The decline is still there starting in 1958. It’s not as severe, but it’s there.

What of the inverse climb of divorce rates among Catholics and non-catholics alike? Why does it mirror the mass attendance figures so very closely? Just coincidence?

Yes, there is a decline in 1958, but there’s also an uptick around 1960 and then it stays level until 1965.

The divorce rate is an interesting proposition. And I don’t think anything is really coincidence (which is one reason I don’t think the drop after 1965 just happens to coincide with the implementation of Vatican II). I went here:

bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html

and printed out the graph (it’s actually easier to see the graph when it’s printed).

I wouldn’t say it is a mirror to the Mass attendance rates as the divorce rate starts (gradually) going up during the early 60’s as Mass attendance was staying level. It would be interesting to see isolated statistics for Catholics (if available) since the above graph does not make that distinction. Nevertheless I do think there is some connection in that with so much change after Vatican II, not just in the liturgy but the disciplines of the Church (as FrRJBoyd notes above) that, as Cardinal Ottaviani noted, when you start changing (or rather, making more lax) the disciplines of the Church it should not be surprising to see Catholics become more lax in other areas of life too as the spiritual life affects the physical.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Unfortunately, parish records are not always a good gauge for Mass attendance. Although I am not a pastor myself, I know many pastors who routinely thin their parish registrations based upon whether or not there was any activity (read “donations”) over the past year. This keeps the number of parishioners lower so that they will not be assessed too high for the annual bishop’s appeal and other diocesan taxes. If a Catholic who lives within the parish boundaries wants a wedding or a baptism, and they haven’t used envelopes within the past year (whether or not they attend Mass weekly), they are re-registered, making it appear that there is a steady stream of “new parishioners” when in fact there may be relatively little activity. The current model used within many parishes is hat of the small business, and many numbers games are employed.

Pastorally speaking, low Mass attendance is at a crisis level today. Many parishioners attend Mass one, two, or three times a month, but not every week, and see nothing wrong with missing “occasionally” (if there is something more important to go to, like a sporting event), even though Holy Mother Church consistently teaches that it is a grave obligation (i.e., binding under the pain of mortal sin) to attend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. And when a priest admonishes his congregation, even quite gently, concerning the gravity of this obligation, it is usually met with a great deal of hostility.

It would be an oversimplification to say that the NO is responsible for declining Mass attendance. There were so many changes made without explanation in the 1960’s --regarding the Eucharistic fast, abstinence from meat, laws of fasting during Lent --as well as within the Mass, that many Catholics seemed to get the impression that all Catholic laws are arbitrary, and we can pick and choose from whatever we want. Hence, as Pope John Paul II put it, we have a crisis of obedience within the Church today.

In my experience, most of the people who regularly attend the TLM have already come to the conclusion that their relationship with God needs to be the most important thing in their lives. Many make great sacrifices to attend the TLM, driving for an hour or more, many with small children, to attend the Mass. Many are escaping irregular NO liturgies that they have found in their own parishes. In short, the percentage of committed Catholics attending any given TLM is probably much higher than what you find at your typical NO parish.

This is not to say there are not many, many committed Catholics attending NO Masses --there are! Some are travel great distances to hear the NO offered the way the Church intends and to hear an orthodox homily. Some stay in less than perfect circumstances because they know the value of the Mass. The Mass under either form has a general Mass fruit of infinite value, and to receive the Eucharist is a gift of inestimable worth.

My problem with the NO is not that it cannot be offered beautifully, but rather that it can be offered in a manner that does not adequately capture the sacredness inherent to the Holy Sacrifice
–rock Masses, folk Masses, polka Masses, Masses with liturgical dance–
**are possible, and technically nothing has been done contrary to law. **However, as we have all experienced, liturgical abuse is the norm today, and when you find a NO Mass where the priest offers it as the Church intends, you find the exception which proves the rule.

Because so many people have fought so hard to preserve the TLM, when you find one offered, it is usually quite reverent and according to the rubrics. The priests who offer it are often marginalized from many of their brother priest, who (as I was told by one of my brother priests), see it as the Mass “of schismatics and lunatics.” As I understand it, the Masses offered before Vatican II were often less than by the book, but since it was in Latin and the priest was facing away, few realized any abuse was occurring.

Pope Benedict XVI has, in my opinion, brilliantly suggested that perhaps the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Mass can mutually enrich each other, leading to greater reverence and respect for the rubrics within the typical NO Mass. It shouldn’t be about a competition between the NO and the TLM, but rather what leads more people to holiness.

Hi FrRJBoyd,

I’d agree that ascertaining Mass attendance whether by parish records or polling is not an exact science (although overall trends can be discerned, I think).

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement (the first I put in bold) above. I think it’s correct to point out that it wasn’t just the liturgy changing, but other disciplines of the Church as well. And that, unfortunately, if Catholics perceive that disciplines which have been around for their lifetime or longer can be arbitrarily changed then perhaps they can change what laws of the Church they intend to follow.

The other points you make (some of which I have put in bold) I can only wholeheartedly agree with.