Sociological reasons for lower Mass attendance

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t agree that the “New Mass” looked and sounded like a Protestant service.

Yes, like a Mainline Protestant service (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist, etc.).

But around the time of Vatican II, the Evangelical Protestant churches started growing by leaps and bounds.

Part of this growth occurred because many of the Mainline Protestant denominations were becoming theologically liberal, teaching such fallacies as “the Virgin Birth is a myth,” “Jesus was just a Good Man,” and “there are many pathways to heaven, not just Christianity.”

Also, the Mainline Protestant denominations were embracing a social liberalism , not just advocating helping the poor, which is GOOD, but advocating a more socialist form of government, which Catholics and Evangelicals recognize as not so good. They were also allowing women to become pastors, and homosexuals to become pastors.

The result was that many Mainline Protestants left their denominations and headed for Evangelical Protestant churches, where the theology was still very traditional, the pastors were men, the music was modern and uplifting, the fellowship was sweet, the youth group and children’s programs were dynamic, and the pastor’s sermons dealt with real-life issues, not theological exposition.

Nowadays, many of the Mainline Protestant churches have tried to modernize their worship services and have abandoned the “liturgy” in favor of praise and worship time, lots of personal testimonies and words of prophecy from the congregation, and a short “message” from the pastor rather than a homily or sermon. But people continue to leave these churches. (Some Protestants stay because some of the Mainline denominations still feature classical music/organ/traditional hymns.)

So what I’m saying here is that the “New Mass” does NOT in any way, shape. or form resemble an Evangelical Protestant worship service, which is where most Protestants attend church nowadays, and where many of them were attending back in the days when Vatican II was happening!

When my husband and I attended Mass for the first time in 2002 at our current parish, we were Evangelicals Protestants (grew up in Baptist and Pentecostal churches), and to us, the Mass seemed utterly and completely ANCIENT! We had no clue what was going on, and other than the Lord’s Prayer and the Bible readings, NOTHING was familiar to us. NOTHING!

We later learned that the Mass we were attending was the “New Mass,” and was considered “contemporary, not traditional” by the Catholics. Hmmmph! That’s just funny, because to us, it felt like something out of medieval times!

So I don’t buy that argument. Singing “Kum Ba Yah” (which we have never sung in Mass or at any parish event inour now 15 years as Catholics!) and speaking in the vernacular is simply not enough to make a Catholic Mass resemble in any way, shape, or form an Evangelical Protestant worship service.

Maybe in England, there aren’t any Evangelical Protestant churches, so the author of this book just doesn’t have a clue about the U.S. church situation.
 
Last edited:
Part of what enables a network to function is a sense of identity, established by “markers.”
Click to expand...

So many factors to consider and balance. I think RICA was a great new identity marker. Sacraments and sacramental have been our Maine markers. And some needed review, as in, what are we trying to do here? What is this really supposed to be about? A lot of changes came through the centuries and I think the quest for “what is authentic” was a good intention.

I think there are many, many other sociaologicL factors. But now looking back, how could our reformation have been different. I use the term “reformation” in the sense of the many religious reformers within the RCC like John of the Cross.

 
So, having been to many Protestant churches (mostly Baptist, some Methodist, and Non-denominational), I can honestly say that, with the exception of Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Lutherans, that the “Modern” Mass does not have much in common with Protestant worship services. And the reason it’s similar to Anglicans and Lutherans, and because it has always been for as long as they have existed (although, with some obvious differences). I’ve noticed it the other way around though; now a lot of Protestant groups that have not historically celebrated liturgical seasons (like Lent and Advent) are now!
 
Well, the “New Mass” is more like the Mass in patristic times, and in that time the Church grew a lot, so I don’t think it makes a lot of sense.
 
These days the problems are twofold and contradictory.

First, the Church refuses to change to meet the desires of a young and more liberal base.
For example, the Church refuses to acknowledge what many consider to be failures, such as with pedophelia, homosexuality, women’s rights, etc.

Second, when it DOES address the above issues, it drives away the conservative base, such as with Vatican II.

The Church is in a bad spot. Widespread information such as from the Internet is killing religion.
 
Peeps said:
I don’t agree that the “New Mass” looked and sounded like a Protestant service.
Click to expand...
I agree in that I don’t think they were comparing it to the modern day non-denominational / evangelical churches. When they say Protestant service, I believe they are speaking of the mainline Protestant churches of the time around VII. Which as you said, were similar in certain aspects.

But I also agree that even the mainline Protestant Churches have moved away from the liturgical side and have attempted to resemble the evangelical mega church worship service.
 
Laying everything on V2 seems too simple, as is pointed out in the article societal change was already taking hold.
 
LateCatholic said:
…the Church refuses to acknowledge what many consider to be failures, such as with pedophelia, homosexuality,…
Click to expand...
Huge issues right there. Credibility and trust so badly damaged. Bishops still think they can dictate morality?
 
Last edited:
What about the fact that families no longer have 6-8 kids or more like they used to, but more like 2-4? That alone would cut Mass attendance dramatically within a few generations. There’s simply fewer new cradle Catholics now than there were in the 40s & 50s.

DH & I have 7 kiddos and we stick out like a sore thumb as one of those very few and far between large families at our local Catholic parish. We’re a dying breed LOL

I wonder if that book takes smaller family size into account.

I haven’t seen this particular sociological reason for lower Mass attendance addressed much over the years… it’s usually just that Vatican II is used as a scapegoat for every negative thing that’s happened since the 60s 😦 Poor Vatican II. It’s like the ugly stepchild or something… always getting picked on and blamed.
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
Widespread information such as from the Internet is killing religion.
Click to expand...
No, information (facts) is a good thing.

What young people are being
introduced to is not information , but who has the catchiest slogans.

I lnow it’s a joke, but someone really is wrong on the internet.
 
Going back to the mid-1950s, 2 kids was the norm. Some people had passed their child-bearing years and some married couples only had one child. Abortion has cost millions of lives starting in 1973.
 
Access to and availability of information has increased exponentially over the past 50 years. It used to be that one would have to trek to their local library to look up answers to questions about the world we live in, history, etc. And that was assuming they had a decent local library, which may people didn’t have access to.

Today, within 10 or 15 seconds of having a question pop into your head, you are able to google it and find an answer that will often times satisfy. Conducting research, asking learned people in the field of question, studying history by visiting places, etc. is only necessary if one wants to do those things. The unfortunate part is that by not doing those things, the whole picture is often missed.

When I was a kid in school, a nun or priest would teach our religion class. We always had Q&A time afterwards to ask questions and get an answer. Answers were provided with confidence, and as kids we either believed what we were told or we didn’t, but there wasn’t a google to check up and get alternative opinions or ideas.

I think nowadays people are much more apt to use the internet to get their information. It can be a problem for the Church.
 
This forum does not view Sociology in a positive sense, but every once in a while it can be useful.

The sociology professor I wish I had at college.
 
Last edited:
Materially wealthy is spiritually poor.

Materially poor is spiritually wealthy.

Africa and Asia. Church growing by leaps and bounds.
 
I didn’t know that… now I need to google average family size in the USA in the 50s vs today
 
Peeps said:
Maybe in England, there aren’t any Evangelical Protestant churches, so the author of this book just doesn’t have a clue about the U.S. church situation.
Click to expand...
There are Evangelical churches in England. Some of them are in the Church of England and if one didn’t know, they would think they’re not Evangelical because they’re in historical church buildings. And others are outside of the State church.
 
Last edited:
LateCatholic said:
First, the Church refuses to change to meet the desires of a young and more liberal base.
Click to expand...
Except meeting the desires of liberals and secularists has yielded nothing for Mainline Protestantism. They’re in steep decline.
Stephen Bullivant, the sociologist cited, published in a different book his findings on liberalization, which shows the same thing. He found very few Catholics who left will bother returning if the Catholic Church started rejecting the need for a literal Resurrection, accept abortions as a good thing, adopting liberal views on sexuality and making it not necessary to believe the Virgin Birth despite the fact they want the Catholic Church to do it.

Even if liberalization worked, the Church (and I define this beyond the Catholic Church as a non-Catholic) doesn’t belong to people, it belongs to God.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
I think nowadays people are much more apt to use the internet to get their information. It can be a problem for the Church.
Click to expand...
While I agree the internet can be a problem for the Catholic Church, it has been devastating for the LDS, Jehovah Witnesses and Scientology even more! Anyone looking to debunk their religion can find a wealth of information out there. They can also find good factual information, too. The problem is knowing the difference!
 
It was said, church leadership in Europe where things are failing shall not try to direct churches in places where Catholicism is thriving such as Africa.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top