Statistics on Latin Mass?

[Ghislieri]

Some additional stats:

1. Mass attendance:
   ◦30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in the U.S.A.: NY Times 5/24/75.
   ◦43% decrease in France: Cardinal Marty.
   ◦50% decrease in Holland: NY Times 1/5/76.
   ◦A decline in practice rate in England and Wales from 55% in 1965 to 25% in 2000.

2.A great decrease in conversions to Catholicism followed the use of the New Mass.
◦Before 1960 they were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S.A. They are now less than 10,000.
◦The number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those entering.

3.Within seven years of the introduction of the New Mass,the number of priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307: Holy See Statistics.

The words of Archbishop Bruno Heim, then Apostolic Delegate to the U.K., spoken at a interview in about 1980: “If I had known what was going to happen as a result, I would not have voted for it” (it being the Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy.)

“Statistically, most Catholics today come nowhere near the Liturgy, and even when they occasionally do, there is the serious risk of their being infected with what one might term ‘spiritual food poisoning’ from the diet of poor translations, gross informality, trite music, and any number of abuses… with which they may be confronted.”
[Dom Alcuin Reid: “Do we need a New Liturgical Movement?” UK CIEL conference, London 2004]

“A great deal of Catholic liturgists seem to have come to the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the 16th century debates…
It is only against this background - the de facto rejection of the authority of the Council of Trent - that the bitterness of the fight against allowing the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962 … can be understood.
The possibility of celebrating the Mass in that way provides the strongest, and therefore most unbearable, proof against the opinion of those, who believe that the faith in the Holy Eucharist, as formulated by Trent, has lost its validity.” [Cardinal Ratzinger: Lecture held during the Liturgical Conference at Fontgombault (2001)]

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, of course I don’t have evidence. I am not in a position to monitor many different parishes around the U.S… I know only the parishes in my city (pop 150,000), and they are vibrant and active.

We can’t take anecdotal information as evidence of a nationwide or world-wide trend. CAF has a large number of members, but it is still a very tiny segment of the total Catholic population. And many of the members never post, and never read any of the forums, so we have no idea what is happening in their neck of the woods.

I appreciate your perspective, Cat. Did you think that the majority of Catholics post on CAF? (They don’t ). I appreciate that it might have seemed that I was “just” talking either about anecdotes, or about CAF, or both, but I’m not. I’m actually talking more about more formal surveys, and what priests write about (and no, I don’t mean by that some fringe group, but mainstream priests who have had many assignments, and who have traveled in the U.S. widely).

Hope that clears it up.

 

[otjm]

Some additional stats:

1. Mass attendance:
   ◦30% decrease in Sunday Mass attendance in the U.S.A.: NY Times 5/24/75.
   ◦43% decrease in France: Cardinal Marty.
   ◦50% decrease in Holland: NY Times 1/5/76.
   ◦A decline in practice rate in England and Wales from 55% in 1965 to 25% in 2000.

2.A great decrease in conversions to Catholicism followed the use of the New Mass.
◦Before 1960 they were up to 100,000 a year in the U.S.A. They are now less than 10,000.
◦The number of people leaving the Church far exceeds those entering.

According to the USCCB, over 75,000 joined; to put it in perspective they list

3.Within seven years of the introduction of the New Mass,the number of priests in the world decreased from 413,438 to 243,307: Holy See Statistics.

Cara Statistics: 1970:419,728. 1975: 404,783. 1985: 403,480. 1995: 404,750. 2000: 405,178. 2005: 406,411. 2010: 412,236.

 

[crazzeto]

To put further perspective on what was going on when the new mass was introduced, we had the following occur:

• The spirit of sexual revolution grip the west
• The introduction of the ABC pill, enabling the above
• Legalized abortion, further cementing sex as the center of our lives
• New ideologies emerge which on the surface seem to have little to do with the sexual revolution, but in fact are at their very core products of the sexual revolution (so called “second wave” feminism would abandon promotion of the dignity of women in favor of “sexual liberation”)

Do we expect the new mass caused this? No, neither did the council. No - the spirit of heresy saw a council at council in association with a new mass and used it to promote it’s own moral heresy. I suspect this is where you see the decline in vocations, and ironically I think this has spurred the very great interest in the Latin Mass among the young. I think youngsters are getting sick of revolution.

 

[CutlerB]

To put further perspective on what was going on when the new mass was introduced, we had the following occur:

• The spirit of sexual revolution grip the west
• The introduction of the ABC pill, enabling the above
• Legalized abortion, further cementing sex as the center of our lives
• New ideologies emerge which on the surface seem to have little to do with the sexual revolution, but in fact are at their very core products of the sexual revolution (so called “second wave” feminism would abandon promotion of the dignity of women in favor of “sexual liberation”)

Do we expect the new mass caused this? No, neither did the council. No - the spirit of heresy saw a council at council in association with a new mass and used it to promote it’s own moral heresy. I suspect this is where you see the decline in vocations, and ironically I think this has spurred the very great interest in the Latin Mass among the young. I think youngsters are getting sick of revolution.

Just to make things clear, are you saying the Council promoted heresy? I may have misread your comment, if so, I apologise.

It’s interesting people say “youngsters are sick of revolution”. While I would love to see this here in Germany, from what I experience the youth want more revolution, at least in terms of politics and society. In terms of Church, I believe, German youth don’t care for the most part. It’s my experience that they view her as an oppressive and annoying relic from old times, run by old men out of touch with the times.

While I agree that times and Church are going separate paths, I strongly argue that it’s the times that have changed their course. The Church has never changed her teaching and thus never changed her course. For this reason I prefer to say “The times need to get with the Church”, because that’s what changed.

There aren’t too many among my friends who are “sick of revolution”, much less believe in God. I could only think of two others among my closest friends right away of whom I know they do. Most others don’t, and see the Catholic Church as institutionalised closed-mindedness and superstition. But I believe they would marvel at the incredible beauty of St Peter’s, and the Extraordinary Form could appeal to them too, even though the meaning would not come across.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Just to make things clear, are you saying the Council promoted heresy? I may have misread your comment, if so, I apologise.

It’s interesting people say “youngsters are sick of revolution”. While I would love to see this here in Germany, from what I experience the youth want more revolution, at least in terms of politics and society. In terms of Church, I believe, German youth don’t care for the most part. It’s my experience that they view her as an oppressive and annoying relic from old times, run by old men out of touch with the times.

While I agree that times and Church are going separate paths, I strongly argue that it’s the times that have changed their course. The Church has never changed her teaching and thus never changed her course. For this reason I prefer to say “The times need to get with the Church”, because that’s what changed.

There aren’t too many among my friends who are “sick of revolution”, much less believe in God. I could only think of two others among my closest friends right away of whom I know they do. Most others don’t, and see the Catholic Church as institutionalised closed-mindedness and superstition. But I believe they would marvel at the incredible beauty of St Peter’s, and the Extraordinary Form could appeal to them too, even though the meaning would not come across.

No, the poster is saying that the texts of the Council was hijacked in various ways and a fake “spirit” was created–apart from the true spirit that cannot ever be divorced from the texts–that was then used to justify all kinds of extreme positions and things that were plainly not in the Council. That seems to be the accepted account of What Really Happened.

Some people extend this by saying that at least part of this was due to the more free writing style the Fathers chose to use in composing the texts, as opposed to canons or shorter exhortations. Of course, no genuinely Catholic position holds that the documents themselves contain doctrinal/dogmatic error, but many people earnestly believe, in good faith, that many “signs of the times” were severely misinterpreted and short-sighted, and/or that the texts use language that leads many people to false conclusions, and/or that the desires expressed have a distinctly utopian quality to them that is not practical vis-a-vis trying to persuade non-Catholic entities and bodies (governments for example) to adopt a more moral manner of doing things. For all its linguistic differences to what came before it, the Council still basically speaks the language of Christ, and secularists do not understand that no matter how many of their words, phrases and idioms might be used in the documents in an attempt to speak to them.

I am a young guy and I do believe that young people are sick of revolution. They wouldn’t admit it, but when I speak to many of the more philosophically-inclined of my age group I find that they are experiencing a deep dissatisfaction and emptiness. When I pose to them that perhaps the Latest Thing isn’t going to satisfy them, they agree in their rational side. As far as the Church is concerned, I agree that many youth simply just don’t care. They are indifferent. Frankly I think that is better than being a leftist within the Church; I imagine that it is much easier on the conscience to be materially separated from the Church out of ignorance than to be materially in the Church but spiritually (in a general sense) outside the Church. I would rather tell Christ, “I did not know,” instead of, “I heard them but I did not care.” Now, our challenge is trying to convert them in a genuine sense.

 

[CutlerB]

No, the poster is saying that the texts of the Council was hijacked in various ways and a fake “spirit” was created–apart from the true spirit that cannot ever be divorced from the texts–that was then used to justify all kinds of extreme positions and things that were plainly not in the Council. That seems to be the accepted account of What Really Happened.

Good. I wasn’t quite sure whether I understood him correctly, but if that’s what he’s writing, I quite agree.

Some people extend this by saying that at least part of this was due to the more free writing style the Fathers chose to use in composing the texts, as opposed to canons or shorter exhortations. Of course, no genuinely Catholic position holds that the documents themselves contain doctrinal/dogmatic error, but many people earnestly believe, in good faith, that many “signs of the times” were severely misinterpreted and short-sighted, and/or that the texts use language that leads many people to false conclusions, and/or that the desires expressed have a distinctly utopian quality to them that is not practical vis-a-vis trying to persuade non-Catholic entities and bodies (governments for example) to adopt a more moral manner of doing things. For all its linguistic differences to what came before it, the Council still basically speaks the language of Christ, and secularists do not understand that no matter how many of their words, phrases and idioms might be used in the documents in an attempt to speak to them.

I’ve been trying to read at least the Dogmatic Constitutions so I knew what everyone was talking about, but I’m frightened by a lot of text.

I am a young guy and I do believe that young people are sick of revolution. They wouldn’t admit it, but when I speak to many of the more philosophically-inclined of my age group I find that they are experiencing a deep dissatisfaction and emptiness. When I pose to them that perhaps the Latest Thing isn’t going to satisfy them, they agree in their rational side. As far as the Church is concerned, I agree that many youth simply just don’t care. They are indifferent. Frankly I think that is better than being a leftist within the Church; I imagine that it is much easier on the conscience to be materially separated from the Church out of ignorance than to be materially in the Church but spiritually (in a general sense) outside the Church. I would rather tell Christ, “I did not know,” instead of, “I heard them but I did not care.” Now, our challenge is trying to convert them in a genuine sense.

May I ask, how old are you? I’m 19, and what you write is interesting. Among friends and acquaintances (no, this is not Facebook talk!), I don’t perceive it as much as you do. If I were to ask one of the very few philosophically-inclined — which would not number more than three at quick thought, one a JW, one a Lutheran and one an agnostic/atheist — I’d get very diverse answers. My JW friend would, for example, be more of an “I don’t care anyway, they’ll all be judged” attitude, the Lutheran would agree with us two here , and the agnostic (I’m unsure as to what exactly he is, but he is not a Christian) would agree with the general spirit of social and political “revolution” (think same-sex “marriage”, abortion, euthanasia, contraception).

Concerning the Church, I imagine attitudes as follows:
JW: “The Catholic Church is a hoax and evil anyway, so I don’t care what she does.” And he’d keep on criticising and ridiculing her for things like the abuse scandal, history, the beauty of the Vatican, etc. with no comment on liturgy, for such a thing is foreign to him.

Lutheran: As he’s a conservative (in the political sense), he’d agree with a lot of things the Church says, for example same-sex “marriage”, abortion and euthanasia. I’m unsure about how he views Vatican II and the “spirit”, but I know he has a love for the Extraordinary Form, which we went to in Rome once.

Non-Christian: Although he’s politically conservative, moral issues and the Church are not affected by that. He argues for abortion and so forth, and anything to do with the Church is interpreted through the lens of the abuse scandal and historical myths. Liturgy would not bother him.

I think I’ve gone a bit over the boundaries, but this might give a good sense of context.

 

[crazzeto]

No, the poster is saying that the texts of the Council was hijacked in various ways and a fake “spirit” was created–apart from the true spirit that cannot ever be divorced from the texts–that was then used to justify all kinds of extreme positions and things that were plainly not in the Council. That seems to be the accepted account of What Really Happened.

Some people extend this by saying that at least part of this was due to the more free writing style the Fathers chose to use in composing the texts, as opposed to canons or shorter exhortations. Of course, no genuinely Catholic position holds that the documents themselves contain doctrinal/dogmatic error, but many people earnestly believe, in good faith, that many “signs of the times” were severely misinterpreted and short-sighted, and/or that the texts use language that leads many people to false conclusions, and/or that the desires expressed have a distinctly utopian quality to them that is not practical vis-a-vis trying to persuade non-Catholic entities and bodies (governments for example) to adopt a more moral manner of doing things. For all its linguistic differences to what came before it, the Council still basically speaks the language of Christ, and secularists do not understand that no matter how many of their words, phrases and idioms might be used in the documents in an attempt to speak to them.

I am a young guy and I do believe that young people are sick of revolution. They wouldn’t admit it, but when I speak to many of the more philosophically-inclined of my age group I find that they are experiencing a deep dissatisfaction and emptiness. When I pose to them that perhaps the Latest Thing isn’t going to satisfy them, they agree in their rational side. As far as the Church is concerned, I agree that many youth simply just don’t care. They are indifferent. Frankly I think that is better than being a leftist within the Church; I imagine that it is much easier on the conscience to be materially separated from the Church out of ignorance than to be materially in the Church but spiritually (in a general sense) outside the Church. I would rather tell Christ, “I did not know,” instead of, “I heard them but I did not care.” Now, our challenge is trying to convert them in a genuine sense.

 

[adawgj]

In my personal belief both the Latin Mass and the Ordinary form can coexist both provide the spirituality that the faithful need and both bring good flavors of our faith. I appreciate what the FSSP has done for the Church.

 

[Mike30]

My attending the EF does not make me have illusions of grandeur, nor do I maintain a pretense of being part of a cultural elite. I am a mutt: I look Irish, my grandmother is an immigrant from a farmer German family, and the rest I don’t even know. Sure, I like nice things, but who doesn’t, and how does that make me part of a cultural elite? My blood is po’.

I don’t know about Germany, but here in the USA I don’t notice an overflowing of fine clothing and English shoes at EF Masses. More often than not, in fact, there are plenty of average, plain families. Perhaps in Germany the remnants of the House of Hohenzollern are the main attendants of the EF, but in most other places it seems the main attendants are common folk.

And what’s that bit about not growing from the bottom up? That is exactly where the restoration of the EF came from. Sure, had it not been for the SSPX the EF would not exist, but had it not been for the laity who support them financially they would not exist; as well, were it not for the non-SSPX-attending laity begging on their knees to their bishops for decades upon decades to permit its celebration once a month on a Thursday at 3:17 PM, the EF would not exist. Also, last but not least, were it not for our Joseph Ratzinger, and his own life experiences, the EF would not exist.

The existence of the EF is a supreme example of a grassroots, bottom-up movement in the Church on an international scale if I’ve ever seen one.

Is there such a thing as a fifty year fad that manages to keep lots of young men and women interested? No, and that’s proven in more ways than one. This is not a fad.

“Development is leading towards the [renewed] Mass.” What development is meant here? It exists already. It is as developed as it can be, really. There is no work to be done there. Unless he means RotR, but I don’t think that is what he means.

The bolded part is absolutely true. One proof is the Extraordinary Form Mass in San Diego, California. It was one of the first places to request to have one after the indult was issued. For years they held Mass at different locations and were finally permitted to use the Chapel at a local Catholic Cemetary. The sheer number of people attending caused the Mass to spill out from the Chapel and into the areas which contained the actual crypts. This continued for some time. Every Sunday, a Rosary was prayed asking the Blessed Virgin to intercede for the group that they might have a Church of their own.

Several years ago, that happened. The FSSP was assigned to run a Parish that had been shut down due to declining attandance. Imagine that. They, together with the congregation completely re-did the interior of the Church and re-invigorated the Parish and Parish life. They now have five Masses every Sunday, Vespers every Sunday and two Masses every other morning of the week. It was all from the ground up and from Heaven down you might say. It took over twenty years, but it was accomplished.

 

[QuestingKnight]

To put further perspective on what was going on when the new mass was introduced, we had the following occur:

• The spirit of sexual revolution grip the west
• The introduction of the ABC pill, enabling the above
• Legalized abortion, further cementing sex as the center of our lives
• New ideologies emerge which on the surface seem to have little to do with the sexual revolution, but in fact are at their very core products of the sexual revolution (so called “second wave” feminism would abandon promotion of the dignity of women in favor of “sexual liberation”)

…

What we want are statistics for Protestant sects, expecially Lutherans and Epicopalians, for the same period. Did they also suffer a similar exodus?

 

[jeanannemarie]

This is exactly why the Bishop made these comments. Because so many traditionalists think of the EF as the only legitimate Mass, and the OF as something to be snuffed out entirely.

I’ll repeat it until I’m blue in the face even everyone on the Traditionalist forum has put me on their ignore list and I’m just talking to myself: the vernacular Mass has nothing to do with the decline in Church attendance, which is part of an overall cultural trend. I know that to many of you we NO-attenders are just Neo-Catholics, but those of us who want to hear the Mass in our native tongue love God no less than those who want to hear it Latin.

It is not just a matter of hearing the Mass in your own tongue. Every OF of the Mass I have available is very protestant and not reverent; and yes, I reserve the right to have that opinion. Do many Catholics just really secretly yearn to be like the protestants? I was raised as a protestant and chose the Catholic Church because it is the One True Church with the four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what I hope to find in the Mass, not some watered down version that reminds me of where I grew up. There are plenty of protestant groups to offer novelty and I am not interested. Snobbery and feeling elite has nothing to do with being able to discern sincerity and truth and reverence, as opposed to not reverent.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Why do you (and others) care so much what traditionalists think, that they prefer the EF etc…so much so that you hang out in a forum specifically to show them just how wrong they are? I continue to hear from certain posters how much this or that topic comes up over and over again. And what do they do? They post on the topic! I don’t get it.

I have wondered the same thing. This area is designated for discussing Tradition and anything legitmate thrown out here to discuss is often quickly jumped on with negativity. Basically the topics get derailed before anyone can learn much of anything. I would think this area would be for defending the Church teaching, but it has a very liberal slant. I think perhaps the philosophy of Minimalism reigns here. How little can I do and still be a Catholic?

 

[John_Lazarus]

My two cents regarding the “two forms of liturgy not being able to coexist.”

Whenever anyone says this, they completely destroy and insult any Rite in Catholicism that is not the Ordinary Roman Rite. The Rites of the Church have existed for over a thousand years, with some of the Rites being older than the standardized Roman Rite.

Two different forms of liturgy can’t exist side by side? There’s never been a moment where there’s been only one form of liturgy!

It’s actually an insult to all rites, including the OF. And I think it is shortsighted to think that those who desire the EF are somehow elitist – especially since there are still many Catholics who grew up with the EF, and miss it terribly. I imagine it would be the same as a person who grew up in a Ukrainian or Chaldean parish all of a sudden only having access to the OF in English. Wanting to worship the way you always have does not make you an elitist or whatever, any more so than wanting the OF makes you a socialist.

 

[L_Marshall]

It’s actually an insult to all rites, including the OF. And I think it is shortsighted to think that those who desire the EF are somehow elitist – especially since there are still many Catholics who grew up with the EF, and miss it terribly. I imagine it would be the same as a person who grew up in a Ukrainian or Chaldean parish all of a sudden only having access to the OF in English. Wanting to worship the way you always have does not make you an elitist or whatever, any more so than wanting the OF makes you a socialist.

Precisely.

Looking forward: It seems to me like the tumult between OF-goers and EF-goers is finally winding down. More people I know are going to both, or are more accepting of it. I even know a few people who are going between Roman Rite and Eastern Rites, just depending on what they feel will be more spiritually nourishing for them at the moment.

Hopefully, since it seems that the Church is just calming down now, more people will be willing to think of us more as a universal Church.

 

[maryjk]

It’s actually an insult to all rites, including the OF. And I think it is shortsighted to think that those who desire the EF are somehow elitist – especially since there are still many Catholics who grew up with the EF, and miss it terribly. I imagine it would be the same as a person who grew up in a Ukrainian or Chaldean parish all of a sudden only having access to the OF in English. Wanting to worship the way you always have does not make you an elitist or whatever, any more so than wanting the OF makes you a socialist.

I find that an interesting statement.

I know many people that travel to attend a EF Mass. The Mass at our local parish is in the OF.

But every single person I know that does that is either too young to have grown up with the EF or they are a convert.

 

[ProVobis]

Looking forward: It seems to me like the tumult between OF-goers and EF-goers is finally winding down. More people I know are going to both, or are more accepting of it.

This is possible. I see now more of a battle between vernaculars. Spanish Mass vs English Mass, bilingual liturgies, etc. And seeing that the overwhelming majority of those attending the English Mass are over 55, I would not bet on the expansion of the English Mass. Spanish Mass, perhaps, as it draws a lot of younger people.

 

[L_Marshall]

This is possible. I see now more of a battle between vernaculars. Spanish Mass vs English Mass, bilingual liturgies, etc. And seeing that the overwhelming majority of those attending the English Mass are over 55, I would not bet on the expansion of the English Mass. Spanish Mass, perhaps, as it draws a lot of younger people.

If only the Latin Rite had some sort of universal liturgical language

 

[otjm]

I read an article not that long ago which suggested that within 5 years, there will be more people attending Mass at SSPX chapels than at regular diocesan Masses or regularized Masses from religious communities. I am not sure of the truth of the matter, but if so, it is quite telling and also quite sad.

I would like to know what the writer was smoking, because it was some really really good stuff.

There are well over 5000 parishes in the US; and given the larger ones and the smaller ones, a safe number would be an average of around three Masses on a weekend, or something in the range of 17,000+ Masses on a weekend.

And there are how many SSPX churches/chapels in the US?

 

[CutlerB]

If only the Latin Rite had some sort of universal liturgical language