No, the Eucharist didn't change. Now let me throw some data your way.

"he share of U.S. adults who say they believe in God, while still remarkably high by comparison with other advanced industrial countries, has declined modestly, from approximately 92% to 89%, since Pew Research Center conducted its first Landscape Study in 2007.1 The share of Americans who say they are "absolutely certain" God exists has dropped more sharply, from 71% in 2007 to 63% in 2014."

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/

And that's just 2007 to 2014!

"An analysis of religious trends from 1981 to 2007 in 49 countries containing 60% of the world's population did not find a global resurgence of religionmost high-income countries were becoming less religioushowever, it did show that in 33 of the 49 countries studied, people had become more religious (Norris and Inglehart, 2011). But since 2007, things have changed with surprising speed. From 2007 to 2020, an overwhelming majority (43 out of 49) of these same countries became less religious. This decline in belief is strongest in high-income countries but it is evident across most of the world"

https://blog.oup.com/2020/12/why-is-religion-suddenly-declining/

"He cites British Social Attitudes surveys, which suggest that the number of Anglicans here "fell from 40% of the population in 1983 to 29% in 2004 to 17% last year". "   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33256561

"Both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009."  https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

"On average last year, 36 percent of Americans in ABC News/Washington Post polls identified themselves as members of a Protestant faith, extending a gradual trend down from 50 percent in 2003. That includes an 8-point drop in the number of evangelical white Protestants, an important political group."  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protestants-decline-religion-sharply-shifting-religious-landscape-poll/story?id=54995663


Those are HUGE declines in absolute numbers - and not just for Catholics. It is a global phenomenon and has nothing to do with Vatican II or changing from TLM to NO. People notice this stuff, and some retreat and some are drawn to more traditional venues like the TLM for comfort. And taking your argument to absurd heights: During the Middle Ages, pretty much 100% of the population was Catholic and practiced the TLM - yet it gave rise to Protestantism and a fall to Catholicism vastly shrinking. How do you explain that? Why couldn't I lay the fault of that at the feet of TLM? You only want to focus on the data from the last few years. Logically, that's not consistent.

I want to extend an olive branch to those who I have argued with most vociferously. Know that you guys are brothers in Christ and we are all on the same side. We all want the same thing and there's nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement about how to accomplish that as long as it doesn't get personal. In some of my arguments, I was probably less than charitable and for that I apologize.

You know, I find that most arguments spiral out of control because neither side is on the same page. They each THINK they're arguing the same point but because of some misunderstanding, you are lead into thinking the other person is being completely irrational. Thank you, too, for continuing to engage.

As far as the increased irreverence towards the Eucharist: I fully admit that it is a problem, but I think the root is not the switch from TLM to NO - although I *do* admit that the TLM certainly does place more emphasis on it. The bigger question is: How do you increase faith in a world that is increasingly becoming LESS faith-filled? It's like the old adage about leading a horse to water, because in some cases people will simply refuse to believe. Sure they believe in God (in some form), but they aren't deeply rooted in that faith. They proclaim themselves to be Catholic but are pro-abortion. They claim they're Jews but eat pork. They believe they're Muslim but drink alcohol. Some are simply ignorant of the real presence, for example, some just don't believe even though they've been taught. What are you going to do about the latter group?

Look at these statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance#Attendance_by_country. Notice that the countries that have high church attendance are all in less developed parts of the world where there are fewer distractions. I bet their service looks a lot different than ours, and while one can deride the form of mass, but you can't deny that they follow their faith more closely. If NO were to blame, then how do you explain that? From the Wiki article: "Church attendance in advanced industrial societies is in gradual general decline with people shifting from weekly to monthly or holiday attendance. Sociologists have attributed this trend to a number of reasons, starting from a simple boredom during services and lack of motivation, to generational incompatibility of belief systems and social changes attributed to modernity. Research across 65 different nations showed that out of 20 advanced industrial countries - 16 demonstrated a declining rate of monthly church attendance." We evangelized previously unknown countries and made converts, but that had nothing to do with the TLM but the colonial ambition of Europe - the church just hopped on the ships to ride along.

About making the church more "worldly": Again, this is just my belief, but I think that it was the right thing to do. The church now actively has to compete for interest. Going back to the the spreading of the faith to other cultures: How much easier is it to get other people to embrace the faith by making the celebration of mass more local, for lack of a better word, assuming you don't change the meaning of the mass? What's wrong with the church going out to meet the people? It's a better way to get more of them to come, wouldn't you think? We are an apostolic church, are we not? I kind of see this whole argument as "we remain aloof and you have to come to us" versus "we know things are tough and we're coming out to reach you" kind of deal.

On a personal note: I went to church from my earliest memories. We're talking about a church whose foundations were laid in the 14th century. Going to mass, I remember them playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue when I walked in. Yes - that sort of mass inspires a certain reverence. When I moved to the US I was flabbergasted - but eventually I also saw that there are a lot of people who are drawn to what I don't like and are more likely to reject a "stuffy" mass - and it doesn't have anything to do with the level of faith. I have Protestant friends who are some of the best people I know and their church service apparently is more akin to a concert.

Bonus pics of my first Communion mass from 1976:



I share your pain about the state of the church, but the reasons for that are varied and complex. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer but I do know (or I'm pretty sure I know) that the answer isn't "going back".

@skid2041

I just watched the video below. The youth were polled - along with their belief in the real presence - about the REASON. It turns out that they intellectually reject the teaching. The segment of the video is very short in the beginning. Unfortunately, the discussion about "what do we do about it?" was too short for my liking. His answer was 1) Catechisis, and 2) More reverence for the blessed sacrament. He does reject the NO as being a singular fault though, but leaves open the idea that we could do more to treat it as it should be.

I got a good one for you:



Antopope? God-hating Freemason? Will not comply?

Other selected quotes from this thread:

Further proof that the smoke of Satan has not only entered the Church, but that it now sits upon the Chair of Peter.  I will continue to pray for this miserable pope's repentance and conversion, but I will also now pray for a speedy end to his papacy.

It's been Traditionalists who have opposed Bergoilian plans (yeah, VG, I finally said it - but only because Franciscan would be confusing) to further Protestantize the liturgy, grow syncretism and indifferentism, promote homosexuality as holy, disestablish traditional gender roles, etc.

So why do TLM parishes teach the truth and, apparently, most NO parishes don't?

I'll stop here because I don't care to re-read the entire thread. The question posed was "Plenty of assertions from some in this thread about non-acceptance of V2 without any examples of non-accepted teachings.". Now granted, you could logically say that none of what I posted technically could be defined as "not accepting the teachings of V2", but that is semantics, pure and simple. The hatred and vitriol directed at the Pope and the actions ascribed to the church in just the quotes above do not give me the warm fuzzies about someone embracing the Magisterium or its decisions.

Yeah, I think we've definitely reached an impasse and have taken this as far as it can go. Y'all have a good weekend.