Did it ever occur to you that CARA probably isn’t right about Church attendance? There are plenty of sources out there that talk about attendance after Vatican II, alot of them with different figures. CARA’s stats can’t possibly be correct about numbers not falling much after Vatican II. I suggest looking at different sources and seeing which ones seem the most logical, because I’m not convinced by the stats CARA has.
Let me try this from another direction.
I was in the college seminary when Vatican 2 closed. I have “been there, done that, got the t-shirt”. While I decided that being a priest was not my vocation, it did not mean that I had no further interest in the Church and what was going on. I lived through that period and there simply was no exodus out. Some people were peeved about the changes; but they were in a small minority. The large majority of people were thrilled to have the Mass said in the vernacular. Most of them were not at all theologically sophisticated enough to tell the differences between the prayers of the OF and the paryers of the EF. They did not go around saying that the prayers were “Protestantized”. People were more upset about physical changes - the altar, Communion rails, and later statutes - than they were with the OF.
There has been a group - small but very vocal - who have blamed all of the ills, or as many as they can which the Church suffers today - on the documents of Vatican 2 and the OF. They are a group that constantly talks about how “droves of people” left the Church.
Whe one asks them for proof, they act as if one had accused them of lying. I don’t. I think they truly believe what they say; but they have absolutely no evidence to back it up (that is, the drop in attendance) other than occasionally some statistitics they take both out of context and with no back up.
For example, someone herein cited the peak of attendance (about 75%), and without taking a breath used the date 1965 (the end of V 2 and the introduction of the OF) as if they coincided. They didn’t -the peak was in 1957, 8 years before. By 1965, attendance was down to 67%or a drop 7 to 8% and that works out to an average drop of 1% per year. Then they go to forward to a drop to 25% (without citing their source) 40 to 45 years later, implying that it went down during that period 50% ( 75% down to 25%). However, it did not drop 50%. It was only 67% as of 1965, and went down to 25% (uncited) or 33% (cited to CARA in 2003.
That is playing fast and loose with numbers to begin with. It is failing to be specific about the information (1957 is not 1965). So lets take the ends - 1957 to 2010 and lets take the 75% to 25%. That is a 50% drop in 53 years, or less than an average of 1% per year.
Further, they cite nothing anywhere at all to show any precipitous drop at any time in that range of dates. They just say numbers and presume facts not in evidence.
I am not trying to make light of the drop in attendance. There are numerous issues at work on people over the last 50+ years. There simply is no statistical evidence that the change in the Mass or Vatican 2 documents or a combination of them, or for that matter, all of the dissent and goofbll priests playing fast and loose with the rubrics of the Mass at any time caused a significant drop in any short period of time.
The drop in attendance is horrible. I don’t question that in the least. But it tires me to no end to constantly be confronted with a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument embellished with false statistics or a gross lack of understanding of the statistics quoted - or misquoted. People don’t check their facts. They hear something, and unquestioningly accept it because it sounds like it provides evidence to their presumptions.
Yes, attendance at Mass has fallen off.
And catechesis went into the toilet and someone flushed when we got rid of the Baltimore Catechism and replaced it with a feel-good-Jesus-is-my-buddy-we-all-have-to-love-one-another excuse for catechesis. People who are not taught their faith have no base from which to withdstand challenges. 80 to 90% of Catholics - including those who go to Mass weekly - use ABC with the Pill as the major useage. The sexual revolution started well before the 1960’s; most trace it to the 1920’s; but it exploded during the 1960’s as did the Pill and the Viet Nam war. Ignoring the massive changes that were going on in society and presuming the Church was perfectly fine in the 1950’s is ignoring history and replacing it with rhetorical presumptions.
The presumption that returning to different prayers, more complex rubrics and Latin is going to cure the ills of the Church, let alone society simply ignores the problems that both the Church and society face today. And that is not to make any negative statement about the EF - I grew up on it and attended more Masses in the EF than many posters herein have attended in their life. But simplistic answers to complex problems are never successful.
Back to the OP. The EF needs to stand on its own two feet. As soon as one plays the “this is better than that” card, people will react negatively. If one truly loves the EF, then that love should not have to be qulified by negative comments about something else.
