Header image: Collage of sections from “Catholic Opinion of English Mass,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1965, page 34. Scan via San Francisco Chronicle archives / NewsBank. Reproduced in accordance with terms for non-commercial use. To view the full-size image, click here.

This article was originally published on October 6, 2025.

Links to the other parts of the series can be found here: Main Page, Series Intro, Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, and the Series Conclusion.

The first part of this series explored how the initial liturgical changes made before the Novus Ordo Missae of 1970–what could be called the ‘reform before the reform’–were experienced and understood by the laity. 

We saw that, for the overwhelming majority of English-speaking Catholics who lived through these changes, the “New Mass” arrived in 1964 rather than 1970. The initial modifications to the liturgy, particularly in 1964, were not viewed as being essentially the same as the pre-conciliar liturgy. Rather, they were viewed as a distinct and novel thing.

It also seems that the initial liturgical changes were widely viewed as the primary and fundamental liturgical change, and that the revised missal of 1970 was considered by many to be something closer to a minor modification rather than a major new milestone.

In this second part of this series, I will focus on assessing the laity’s reception and reaction to these initial liturgical changes which occurred between 1964 and 1968. Did the laity welcome and support these initial liturgical changes? Did the clergy? Did the success of the initial modest liturgical changes drive interest or demand for further, larger changes?

The reader may well wonder: don’t we already know the answer to these questions? It’s been over five decades since this “interim” period after the council… surely these questions have been definitively answered by now. The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is: no.

Existing scholarship contains commonly accepted opinions about these questions, but they have not been authoritatively answered. As I mentioned in my introduction to the series, the common academic consensus is that the very modest initial liturgical changes were widely accepted and warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the laity (unlike the publication of the revised Roman Missal of 1970, which sparked a significant amount of resistance and confusion).

 And yet, this current consensus is founded on almost no concrete data: most existing scholarship does not cite, review, or mention a single opinion poll or survey conducted between 1964 and 1969.

It may seem baffling but it bears repeating: most existing scholarship which purports to discuss lay opinions and reception of the ‘interim’ liturgical changes does not cite, review, or mention a single opinion poll or survey conducted between 1964 and 1969. 

In my research into existing scholarship, I consulted fourteen prominent academic books and seven scholarly articles published between 1975 and 2023, listed below. The explicit theme and scope of these works, in whole or in part, is the laity’s reception of and reaction to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent changes (including, but not limited to, the liturgical changes). 

Fig. 1 – Collage of examples of scholarly books which treat the reception of Vatican II but which do not cite a single survey of lay opinion between 1964-1969 regarding the liturgical changes.

EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP CONSULTED:

To my surprise these twenty one works, collectively and in a combined total, cited just seven surveys of the laity regarding the liturgical changes after the Second Vatican Council. Of these, four surveys were conducted after 1970, while only three were conducted between 1964 and 1969. The seven surveys cited in existing scholarship are as follows:

As shown in the summary table below, fifteen of these existing works of scholarship do not cite any lay surveys or opinion polls from between 1964 and 1969. Seven do not cite any at all, from any year; six only cite one survey which was conducted in 1974; and five of the nineteen existing works of scholarship cite the same survey from 1966.[1]

This is an exceedingly thin basis upon which to make assertions about how the laity received and approved of the liturgical changes between 1964 and 1969. It does not seem possible to have an informed discussion about the meaning and impact of the liturgical reform with this lack of insight into what the laity thought about the initial liturgical changes during these most important and formative post-conciliar years.

One may very well wonder: why has the existing body of scholarship neglected, for decades, an exploration of lay opinion surveys during this critical ‘interim’ period? One reason for this, I suspect, is because there were virtually no efforts made by the various official organs of the church to commission central, organized, stable surveys of the laity during these years.

Without any well-known large public surveys commissioned by the hierarchy or conducted by major Catholic research institutions, there are not many obvious or easily discoverable sources of polling data to which conventional scholarship could make reference.

(It was for this precisely this reason that I needed to search and sift through a great deal of material to find a variety of smaller, isolated surveys made by disparate organizations or groups, but more on that below).

As far as I am aware, the last – and perhaps only – attempt to gauge lay opinions regarding the liturgical changes in a manner similar to my approach here (comparing multiple opinion polls and surveys) was undertaken in 1975 by William McCready of the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). Writing a report for the National Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions, McCready attempted to assess “the attitudes of Catholics toward the liturgy, and to see how these attitudes have changed over the past decade.”[4]

To do this, McCready compared the only robust data points available to him: two national opinion surveys conducted by the NORC, one in 1963 and one in 1974. These surveys were not designed to be ongoing longitudinal studies, and therefore the two surveys could only compared where there were identical questions and similar methodology. McCready, therefore, was only able to – at best – discuss how certain attitudes and trends changed between two static points as assessed in 1975, without any window into what was occurring year over year in between.

Lamenting how little data was available, and how regrettable it was that it was impossible to actually examine the lay opinions and reactions about all the hot-button issues during this critical and formative period, McCready wrote:

McCready apparently judged this outcome to be a foregone conclusion. How could anyone, he seems to ask, have expected the church in America (or elsewhere in the world, for that matter) to have seriously considered undertaking such a substantial ongoing professional study of lay opinions about the changing liturgy or the wider effort to significantly transform the church? In retrospect, however, this seems like a grave failing and a truly serious oversight.[6]

In an effort to rectify these lacunae in the existing scholarship, I once again explored a variety of Catholic diocesan newspapers and primary material (an approach similar to that in Part 1 of this series). My goal was to compile a sizable amount of lay opinion data, sufficient to avoid the limitations of local anecdotes and to allow for a sense of the big picture and trends during these years.

This is the first time to my knowledge that such an effort – to reconstruct as far as possible an accurate understanding of the year-to-year acceptance and opinions of the laity regarding the initial liturgical reforms – has been undertaken. Ultimately I was able to compile a list of 12 surveys conducted between 1961 and 1968 which had not been previously cited or discussed in scholarly literature. Several of these surveys polled the opinions of priests only, some polled only laity, and some polled both.

What follows is a high-level summary of key findings from these surveys, arranged chronologically by year. First I will review the surveys of the laity, which I have divided into three categories: 

After this, I will review surveys of the clergy during this same time period. They are far fewer in number than surveys of the laity, but are nevertheless interesting and useful.

I found several surveys published in 1963 which offer insight into the state of popular opinion regarding the liturgy, and proposals for reform, in the years immediately before the council.  

Fig. 2 – Report in the US Bishops’ news service on the 1963 nationwide OSV survey of lay opinion about potential liturgical changes. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

A diocesan survey of the laity in the Diocese of Fresno, California in 1963 found that 36% of respondents wanted the Mass to remain as it was, while 64% wanted English to be introduced into the first part of the Mass only.[7] Something similar was found in a massive nationwide survey conducted the same year by Our Sunday Visitor, where 25% of respondents wanted the Mass to remain completely in Latin, 15% wanted the Canon to remain in Latin but English in the rest, and 60% preferred the idea of Mass in completely English compared with keeping it in Latin or having a mix of both.[8]

A multi-year survey of American dioceses, aimed at evaluating the current-state of liturgical participation in parishes, found that by 1963 supermajorities of American parishes had implemented programs for active participation at the Mass, but that lay opinions were decidedly mixed.[9]

For example: the dioceses of Kansas City, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Seattle, St. Louis, and Youngstown reported that between 80%-100% of parishes had implemented programs of lay participation in low masses (e.g. according to the 1958 “Dialogue Mass” framework promulgated by Pius XII), and between 16%-68% of parishes reported similar congregational participation efforts in sung high masses.[10]

These same dioceses reported that non-negligible numbers of the laity were already indifferent or opposed to such prescribed liturgical participation. For example:

Fewer data were available for dioceses in other parts of the world. But some examples – like that of Durban in South Africa – seemed comparable to the results from the United States. Durban had implemented programs for liturgical participation in an overwhelming majority of parishes, but admitted that “quite a number [of the laity] remain mute” instead of participating, and recognized there was a wide range of lay opinions about participation, including “enthusiasm and lukewarmness—occasionally genuine distaste.”[17]

These three surveys from 1963 suggest that, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, substantial percentages of the laity either were not asking for the Mass to change and/or were indifferent or opposed to the existing top-down programs which attempted to mandate and prescribe specific formulas for lay participation in the liturgy.

One of the most interesting discoveries I made was that there was no attempt to professionally survey the laity’s opinions about the liturgical changes immediately following the first changes in 1964. I found four examples of what I would call “informal” surveys, which were not conducted in a controlled fashion, did not produce quantifiable or measurable data, and were merely ad-hoc collections of open-ended comments. In fact, such informal surveys were the only type of surveys taken in the immediate aftermath of the initial liturgical changes in November and December 1964.

It seems that in the first week or two after the changes, most diocesan and even some secular newspapers attempted to publish something similar – essentially a collection of a few comments. Many of these articles described the situation in measured, modest terms; the reactions of the laity were commonly described as “varied” or “different” and consisted of moderate comments for both positive and negative opinions. 

The sense one gets from these accounts is that many layfolk were attempting to be obedient, cautiously optimistic, or willing to give it a try even if they were not enthusiastic.[18] One such article from The Hammond Times of Hammond, Indiana, even captured a similar response of Mildred Agnes Prevost, mother of Robert Prevost – future Pope Leo XIV: “I like the idea of participation in the Mass. I think people will understand the mass better now, as soon as they get used to the changes.”[19]

Fig. 3 – Report in the Catholic Commentator, newspaper of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, regarding an informal sampling of lay reactions to the very first liturgical changes in 1964. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain

Several larger-scale informal surveys seemed to indicate, however, that perhaps larger-than-expected numbers of the laity disliked or were uneasy about the changes.

The US Bishop’s news service offered a random assortment of individual lay reactions about the new changes. The comments selected for inclusion in the article were mostly positive, with the summary given as “English in the Mass seems to have won warm approval, [but] many persons have reservations.”[20] A similar survey of the Diocese of Baton Rouge likewise showed a mix of reactions. The comments chosen for the article were mostly negative, and it used almost the same verbiage to summarize: “… many of the faithful have reservations.”[21]

The National Catholic Reporter conducted an informal survey in 20 dioceses throughout the nation which reported a number of positive and negative comments from priests and laity alike. The report was happy to report “surprising, unhoped-for acceptance” given that “the worst had been anticipated,” but summarized that “[i]n almost every diocese the performance and reception were varied.”[22]

From the very start there seemed to be a sizable number of priests and laity who disliked the changes but resigned themselves to them. A parish in Brooklyn had prepared the laity for the new liturgy with sermons “filled with a ‘you’re-not-going-to-like-this-but’ tone.”[23] One priest in Milwaukee told his congregation: “Some of you are not looking forward to the changes. Neither are we priests. But you can’t buck City Hall, as they say, and we must remember that it is meant for the good of the Church” while another pastor in the same city preemptively surrendered any hope of winning converts to the new liturgy from certain segments of his flock, saying: “If you’re over 60, go on with your missal. I won’t try to change you.”[24]

This last comment reflected a belief which was common before the implementation of the changes; namely that the oldest members of the parish would be the most likely to resist the new liturgy. In fact, the opposite turned out to be true. The National Catholic Reporter survey identified that the greatest resistance to the liturgical changes seemed to come from the 25-40 age range, particularly from married people with families.[25]

This finding would be confirmed by multiple polls in the months and years that followed. Frederick McManus, the indefatigable international  liturgist and director of the US Bishop’s Committee on Liturgy, confirmed this finding again in early January 1965. In an interview with United Press International news agency, McManus said that “the innovations have been most warmly welcomed by young people” but that “for some reason, the greatest resistance has been encountered among men and women in the 25-to-40 age bracket.”[26]

On the other side of the Atlantic, there were apparently very few attempts to professionally survey British Catholics in the immediate aftermath of the first liturgical changes which, like in America, were implemented on the First Sunday of Advent in 1964.

In January 1965, both Archbishop John Heenan of the Archdiocese of Westminster and Bishop George Dwyer of Leeds asked their priests to “get the feeling” of how the laity liked the changes so that these opinions could be discussed by the bishops at their annual meeting on February 3.[27] Neither of these efforts involved professionally conducted polling or survey operations, and no results were ever released to the public. 

However, the bishops did issue a statement at the conclusion of their meeting which hinted at some of the feedback they must have received: “The bishops are well aware of the confusion which has inevitably resulted from the recent changes. At the same time it is evident from the reports that the reforms have been generally welcomed and will produce the spiritual fruits foreseen by the Vatican Council. In the meantime they ask priests and people to be patient and to co-operate wholeheartedly[.]”[28]

While there are not many data points about lay opinions in England in January 1965, I was able to find two and therefore they both seem to deserve mention. First, a small and somewhat opaque survey “undertaken by the Dominican fathers in the northwest section of London” showed that 15% of respondents were opposed to the changes and 4% remained undecided. This same poll also suggested the 25-50 age range was the demographic most negative about the changes.[29]

Second, there were also several nationwide petitions already circulating throughout the UK regarding the liturgical changes by January 1965, seeking one Latin Mass to be retained as an option each Sunday and weekday. While not an opinion survey, the fact that more than 3,000 signatures had been collected in just a few weeks is itself instructive regarding trends in national popular opinion.[30]

Fig. 4 – “Catholic Opinion of English Mass,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1965, page 34. Scan via San Francisco Chronicle archives / NewsBank. Image reproduced in accordance with terms for non-commercial use.

In February 1965, a survey of the laity in San Francisco offered a number of key insights into the reception of the initial liturgical changes.[31] It found, among other things:

But most importantly, when asked about what they desired with respect to future liturgical changes beyond what already had been implemented in November 1964, the survey showed a strikingly mixed and unenthusiastic picture:

In August, Today’s Family magazine ran a nationwide poll of both lay readers and seminarians. The survey attempted to assess lay attitudes to the New Liturgy in general (the basic changes and English permissions which had been implemented in November 1964) in addition to what the survey called “the new changes” – the second round of liturgical reform which had been implemented in March 1965.[32]

The survey asked 12 simple ‘Yes/No’ questions:

As a whole, across all age groups, 58% of the lay respondents approved of the “new changes” in the liturgy, 52% supported the idea of putting the entire Mass in English in the future, and 67% preferred that the priest offer Mass facing the people.[35]

They laity also rejected many of the new practices which had come along with the initial liturgical changes: only 30% were in favor of receiving Communion while standing, only 42% were in favor of entrance processions, only 35% were in favor of offertory processions, and 54% were opposed to the use of lay commentators or lectors.[36]

The Today’s Family poll also revealed yet again that the 25-50 age group was most unwilling to go along with the liturgical changes. This demographic reported liking some English in the Mass (e.g. the initial liturgical changes in November 1964), but rejected the new changes which had been implemented in March 1965, did not want the entire Mass to be put into English in the future, and rejected almost all of the other practices.[37]

Fig. 5 – Survey results of laity aged 25-50 from the 1965 Today’s Family poll. Image created by the author.

In addition to the tabulated results, the editors of the survey also included a selection of 10 free-form letters written by survey respondents. All 10 were negative or critical about the liturgical changes or other changes made by the council. Several are particularly illuminating and help to provide additional context for the survey results, and one in particular seemed worth quoting at length:

The survey results and letters suggest something reflected in other polls and commentary from this period. From the beginning, a non-negligible portion of the laity seemed to be cautiously hopeful about and open to the initial liturgical changes – but they were not asking for further reforms and grew more unhappy and disillusioned as more changes continued to be announced in short order.[39]

Reflecting on the results, the editors said that (emphasis added):

The Today’s Family survey again confirmed that those under 25 years of age were the most in favor of the liturgical changes. Indeed, the stark contrast between the dislike of the liturgical changes by adults in the 25-50 age group and the approval of the changes by the youth had become a topic of conversation almost immediately.

At the Wisconsin Catholic Action convention in early February 1965, Rev. Richard Madden, a Carmelite priest, challenged the youth to “answer the call of the new liturgy,” saying that “many adults are disappointed and resentful” of the liturgical changes and that “the new liturgy is made for young people.”[41]

In the fall of 1965, the National Liturgical Conference (the official organization for the Liturgical Movement in the United States) sought to examine just how well young people were “answering the call” of the New Liturgy by commissioning a robust and professional nationwide survey of college students.[42]

The study was conducted by William Farrell, chairman of the Sociology Department at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. It surveyed over 2,300 incoming college freshmen at seven colleges across the nation.[43] It found:

Beyond these questions about basic support, Farrell also extensively quizzed the students to determine the level of their liturgical sophistication. The results of this portion of the survey demonstrated that the youth did not appear to be understanding “the New Liturgy” in the way liturgists intended, despite the fact that it had been designed for them. 

Indeed, Farrell was clearly dismayed and alarmed by the lack of enthusiasm and liturgical transformation amongst the students. He summarized their opinions and failings in the following points:[47]

It appeared that after a year of participating in the New Liturgy, even the demographic most supportive of the changes were not clamoring for additional liturgical changes and had not been changed by the liturgy in the manner many liturgists had expected or desired. 

Farrell ended his commentary on the survey on a bleak note: “Unless an intensive educational program of liturgical training is implemented … the changes in external form will make little difference. The Mass in English will atrophy and the same kind of apathy will develop toward it as did toward the Latin rite prior to Vatican II.”[48]

In mid-1966, Our Sunday Visitor again conducted a nationwide survey of lay Catholics regarding how the new liturgical changes had impacted their spiritual life. OSV summarized the findings by noting that while “many” liked the new changes, “a majority of those who replied were either uneasy, concerned, disturbed, or even dismayed by many of them.”[49] This is confirmed by the impact the changes had on the habits and devotions of the laity:

Nearly simultaneously with the OSV poll, US Catholic magazine also released a survey in the summer of 1966. At first glance, this survey appears to be an outlier when compared with the rest of the surveys discussed so far.

The US Catholic survey, titled “Liturgy U.S.A : A Status Report,” made headlines for claiming that, unlike every other survey we have seen thus far, almost 100% of American Catholics liked the liturgical changes after all. The report opened with the bold claim: “[t]he survey shows that over 93% of 45 million Catholics like the changes.”[51]

This single survey has been repeatedly and exclusively cited by a prominent American scholar over several decades to make serious, sweeping claims about the laity’s enthusiasm for the initial reforms.[52] Because of this, it seems important to discuss the survey at some length.

US Catholic commissioned a former CIA-analyst named George Fischer of the Archdiocese of Newark to conduct what was supposed to be the first and best scientific nationwide survey since the liturgical changes of 1964. Unfortunately, the survey was deeply flawed and clearly biased – apparently in line with the author’s progressive personal opinions, which he makes clear in the conclusion of the survey summary.[53]

Fig. 6 – Collage of details from “Liturgy U.S.A: A Status Report,” US Catholic, July 1966, pp 6 & 17. Images reproduced with the permission of US Catholic.

Why is this 1966 survey so deeply flawed? There are several critical issues, including:

The survey was also problematic on a fundamental conceptual level. It purported to be an impartial evaluation of how the laity liked the new liturgy: Fischer boasted that “[t]he type of questions asked, quantity of the sample, and response all help to eliminate bias either for or against the liturgical changes […] The type of questions asked of the pastors are ‘fact,’ not ‘opinion’ queries.”[55]

Despite this, Fischer chose to survey priests instead of the laity directly. He also did not employ ‘fact’ based impartial questions; rather, he merely asked pastors of parishes to state what they (the priests) believed to be the opinions of the majority of the laity in their parishes. 

Not a single lay person was ever interviewed as part of this survey, a fact which generated immediate pushback from layfolk who felt the published summaries were wildly inaccurate and not reflective of the true opinions of the laity.[56]

Perhaps most confusingly, despite the purported focus of the survey on the liturgy, Fischer asked only one single question about lay opinions regarding the new liturgy. He also seems to have given only the following–obviously leading–options as possible responses:

Fischer asked this question of certain parish pastors across the nation and summarized the results not by diocese or even ecclesiastical province but rather in groups according to the nine official US government Census regions. This was seemingly done to give the survey a professional and modern sheen, but unfortunately this renders the results extremely difficult to apply or correlate with other data sets. 

Given the serious problems with the integrity of Fischer’s data (which will be described below), this decision also makes it impossible to reconstruct missing information which would otherwise be known on a diocese-by-diocese basis from other sources.

Fig. 7 – Map of US Census Regions used by Fischer to group and summarize his survey data. Image via the US Census Bureau.

Unfortunately and inexplicably, Fischer only published partial results to this question about the liturgy, despite the fact that it was the purported centerpiece of his survey. As seen in the table below, in addition to the national summary results, he only gave results for just two of the five possible responses (“enthusiastic” vs “unhappy but willing to go along”) for only four of the nine census regions.

Fig. 8 – A summary table, created by the author, of the data shared by Fischer in the report on his 1966 survey. Any cell values of [?] indicate that Fischer refused to provide the results of his own survey for these categories.

Such deliberate refusal by Fischer to share the results of the question, which is central to his entire thesis, is in my opinion unjustifiable and necessarily calls into question the summaries he provides for the other, non-disclosed data.[57]

There are other surviving snippets of result data from this survey, that Fischer did not publish in his US Catholic summary article, which suggest that the full results (even in a biased and compromised form) painted a complicated and uneven picture of lay reception. For example: in the state of Connecticut, 17% of the laity were said to be enthusiastic, 51% were reported to be “learning to like” the changes, and 25% were listed as “unhappy but willing to go along.”[58]

Despite the serious flaws in the methodology and refusal to disclose most of the results, Fischer–to his credit, particularly because they stand in opposition to his more strident claims–did share a number of free-form comments and other anecdotes received by the priests who responded to the survey. 

These are revealing and helpful because they are separate from the other problematic and questionable data analysis, and offer direct insight into opinions (both lay and clerical) about the new liturgy. Here are several relevant examples:

Fig. 9 – The cover of Newsweek’s March 20, 1967 issue, which featured the nationwide survey of Catholics on a variety of topics. Image used with permission.

In 1967, Newsweek commissioned Louis Harris and Associates to perform a nation-wide survey of Catholic laity regarding their opinions about all of the post-conciliar changes–including the liturgy. The primary question which touched on the Mass read as follows:

The answer to this question again demonstrated that a sizeable portion of the laity either did not like or did not care about the changes:

The laity were then asked to explain their answer by providing more detail as to why this was the case. These additional, open-ended, responses are likewise useful in understanding how the laity received the liturgical changes. 

48.8% of respondents stated that the “Mass in English is easier to understand” or a similar permutation (e.g. “makes it clearer,” “easier to follow the Mass now,” etc), and 23.6% gave positive comments about the mandatory participation (e.g. “people can participate more now,” “more meaningful,” “you are more a part of it” etc).  Additionally, 31% said that all the different changes were “watering down the distinctiveness of the Catholic Church, that always set it apart from other religions.”

The survey was wide-ranging and spent far more time and ink on issues like birth control, divorce, abortion, and clerical celibacy than on discussions of the liturgy. Nevertheless, the 1967 Newsweek/Harris survey confirms the consistent and persistent trend in the laity’s reception of the initial liturgical changes as seen in other polls.

In May 1968, the UK’s Catholic Herald newspaper conducted a survey of its readership. A variety of topics were polled including one question on the liturgy. 68% of all respondents said they preferred Mass in English, while 30% desired the Mass in Latin.[65]

In summary, we have seen that there was a notable percentage of the laity–far larger than previously thought–that did not like the interim liturgical changes and that some layfolk who liked the very first changes grew increasingly unhappy as further changes were implemented.

Having reviewed the opinions of the laity in a variety of surveys between 1963 and 1968, I wish to now examine what data we have about the opinions of the clergy during this same time period. There are far fewer surviving surveys of priests, but those that do exist reveal a sharp contrast between the opinions of priests and those of the people in the pews – as well as between older and younger priests.

In July 1960, the Vernacular Society of Great Britain conducted a survey of priests in the Diocese of Portsmouth, and the results were published in the April 1961 Monthly Clergy Review. The results were grouped by type of priest: diocesan priest, religious, pastors, or curates (associate priests).[66]

As a whole, 52% of the respondents were in favor of introducing “some use of English in the Mass,” but the responses differed significantly by group and age:

From the very beginning of the liturgical changes, it commented upon that the younger clergy seemed to be far more enthusiastic about the changes than the laity. One unhappy layman, in a letter to the editor published in the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Louis in February 1965, wrote: “The most enthusiastic excitement over the new liturgy seems to be found in religious – very young priests and nuns.”[67]

The August 1965 survey by Today’s Family magazine, discussed above, was not limited to the laity only. The editors of the magazine, which was run by the Crosier Fathers, decided to conduct the same survey with the high school and college seminarians of Crosier Seminary in Onamia, Minnesota. While only a poll of one single seminary, this was particularly illuminating as it allowed for the opinions of laity and the men who were studying to become priests to be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. The survey revealed that “the approval for the changes is absolutely overwhelming among those who [were] preparing to be tomorrow’s priests.”[68]

Fig. 10 – A comparison of the opinions of the laity vs seminarians as expressed in the 1965 Today’s Family poll. Image created by the author.

The seminarians were much more enthusiastic about every single liturgical change than the laity, including liking the second round of liturgical changes from March (96% vs 58%), and wanting the entire Mass put into English in the future (74% vs 52%). The seminarians also were strongly in favor of liturgical practices which were specifically designed for the laity rather than the priests – the use of commentators and lectors, offertory processions, and standing to receive Communion – even though the laity themselves disapproved of all of them.

The extraordinarily strong seminarian and clergy support for the liturgical changes was also confirmed in the reactions to the instruction Doctrina et exemplo which was issued by the Congregation of Seminaries and Universities in December 1965. The document, sent to every bishop around the world, issued guidelines for the liturgical formation of seminarians, restricted the use of vernacular for seminarians, and required that Latin remained the norm for worship at seminaries.[69]

Speaking to the St. Louis Review in January 1966 in reaction to the document, Rev. Daniel O’Hanlon, S.J. – a professor of theology at the Jesuit Seminary in Los Gatos, California and a peritus at the Second Vatican Council – said that the requirement for Latin liturgy “seems very strange to me.” Another West Coast seminary professor, who asked not to be named, said that the instruction’s requirement for retaining Latin in seminary could not be enforced “without a mass exodus or a rebellion […] Seminarians are used to the new liturgy. They are not about to give it up.”[70]

All of this suggests that a significant factor behind the implementation of the New Liturgy was the personal enthusiasm of the priests, particularly the younger clergy, which in every case seems to have exceeded that of the laity. This seems to be confirmed by a comment made by George Fischer in summary of the 1966 US Catholic survey: “[w]here the priest is afraid of criticism from his people, there is little ‘new liturgy.’”[71]

As these various surveys were conducted, it seems that there was at least occasional reluctance or hesitancy on the part of various bishops, columnists, or newspaper editors to transparently report on the full results.[72]

In general, there seemed to be a predisposition to burnish general commentary about the changes and generously interpret initial reactions. The editorial column of the Diocese of Madison’s newspaper put it this way on December 12, 1964:

Juxtaposed against other national and diocesan informal surveys taken in late November and early December 1964 (such as those previously mentioned), it is clear that “wonderful and tremendous with an occasional grumble” was not an entirely accurate summary of the lay consensus even in the very early weeks of the first reforms.

Even just speaking for the Diocese of Madison, which by 1964 was generally less ‘conservative’ and more inclined to the spirit of the Council than other American dioceses, the summary given above was too superlative and did not correspond to lay opinions which had been recorded in the diocesan paper that week or the week before.[74]

On occasion, there also seemed to be an effort to studiously avoid mentioning or emphasizing the most negative revelations of certain surveys. One such example came with the publication of the San Francisco Chronicle poll in February 1965, discussed above. This survey demonstrated a great deal of unhappiness with the reform, deeply divided opinions about the liturgy, and a significant percentage of the laity – 40%! – who wanted to return to the Mass entirely in Latin.

But the results were given a decidedly more positive spin when shared and discussed in other Catholic periodicals. In an article in America magazine two weeks later, no mention whatsoever was made of the most damning results of the poll and the following summary was given: 

If these results could be categorized as “encouraging to liturgists,” one cannot help but wonder just how overwhelming dire and negative the feedback would have needed to be to qualify as “discouraging” or “troubling”.

Something similar occurred after the publication of the previously discussed 1966 survey by Our Sunday Visitor. The survey reported significant declines in weekday Mass attendance, confession, and private devotion, as well as the fact that a majority of respondents either uneasy, concerned, disturbed, or even dismayed by many of the liturgical changes.

Despite these serious findings, the reporting on the survey by the US Bishop’s news service and other diocesan newspapers was mostly positive, upbeat, and sought to emphasize on one particular element: an increase in the “sense of community” amongst the laity. Headlines ran: “Poll Says Liturgy Builds Sense Of Community.”[76]

The survey reported that 33% of respondents felt closer to their fellow parishioners as a result of the liturgical changes, compared with 27% who felt less close than before and 40% who reported no change (a net change of just five percent in total towards more “community feeling”). The editor behind the survey stated: “since an increase in a sense of community was one of the aims of the new liturgy, it is interesting to discover that this is the one area in which a sizeable proportion of the people said the new liturgy had influenced them.”[77]

In general, it seems clear that many in the hierarchy or Catholic media sphere were genuinely surprised by surveys which indicated greater-than-expected lay disapproval with the changes. It would have been understandably uncomfortable to discover that the very first modest liturgical changes were not as popular as expected after the entire enterprise of reform had been put into motion. It seems likely that this was the underlying reason for the occasional pattern of reticence to fully engage with negative survey results and the general disposition to report on lay opinions as positively as possible.

Having conducted this ‘survey of surveys’ between 1961 and 1968, what can we now conclude?

First, we have seen that in most cases a majority of the laity (across all ages) did indeed report liking the initial liturgical changes, but the percentages were certainly not overwhelming or unanimous. It is also clear that, even accounting for local and regional variations, significant numbers of the laity – far more than previously thought – did not like the changes.

The many surveys we reviewed between 1964 and 1968 all differed in sample size, methodology, details, etc. Despite this, it is not too much to claim that they present a fairly similar picture in broad outlines. They demonstrate that there seemed to be a fairly consistent and stable percentage of between roughly 20%-40% of the laity who were unhappy with the initial liturgical changes. This number corresponds fairly well with pre-conciliar surveys which indicated that similar percentages of the laity did not want any changes to the Mass whatsoever or were unhappy with the existing programs of prescribed liturgical participation. 

Some demographic segments, namely those aged 25-50, went on record as disliking most of the initial post-conciliar liturgical changes right from the very beginning. Even surveys which exclusively polled those under 25, the demographic which was most supportive of the changes, reveal a fairly muted picture of support and little appetite or interest in additional reforms beyond what existed in the summer of 1965.

Fig. 11 – A comparison of 9 selected polls and surveys discussed in this article. The surveys are as follows: (A) the 1963 survey of the Diocese of Fresno; (B) the 1963 nationwide survey by Our Sunday Visitor; (C) the 1965 survey of an undefined portion of northwest London by the Dominicans; (D.1) the 1965 survey of San Francisco by The Chronicle, results for people who liked English in the Mass in general; (D.2) the 1965 survey of San Francisco by The Chronicle, results when asked about keeping the liturgical changes or returning to the Latin Mass; (E.1) the 1965 nationwide survey by Today’s Family, results for all laity; (E.2) the 1965 nationwide survey by Today’s Family, results for laity 25-50 years old; (E.3) the 1965 nationwide survey by Today’s Family, results for laity under 25 years old; (F) the 1965 survey of college freshmen by William Farrell; (G) the 1966 nationwide survey by Our Sunday Visitor; (H) the 1967 nationwide survey by Newsweek; (I) the 1968 survey by the UK Catholic Herald.  Image created by the author.

These surveys reveal that the introduction of some vernacular, as opposed to none at all, was consistently ranked as the most popular change of all. Additionally, more of the laity liked the very first changes, introduced in November 1964, than the second round in March 1965 (or subsequent changes after that).

Opinion surveys also reveal that a sizeable percentage of the laity consistently expressed a desire to return to the Latin Mass.

As mentioned above, 40% of the responding laity in San Francisco said they wanted to return the Mass entirely in Latin in February 1965, vs 39% who did not. This percentage was remarkably stable throughout the following decade and beyond. As discussed by historian and sociologist William Dignes: “Gallup polls indicated sizable support (64 per cent in 1979; 40 per cent in 1984) for a return to the tridentine liturgy, at least as an alternative rite.”[78]

This survey analysis also demonstrated that there were noticeable and significant differences in opinions about the liturgical changes between the clergy and the laity and even between different groups of the clergy themselves. Multiple sources confirm that younger priests and seminarians were extraordinarily enthusiastic about the changes, far more so than even the laity who liked them.

It also seems that older priests, mainly pastors, were less supportive or in some cases outright opposed to the changes compared to their younger associates, and that religious clergy (monks and nuns) were far more supportive of the changes than diocesan priests.

Taken all together, these findings complicate and challenge conventional narratives with respect to this “interim” period which have, until now, claimed that the laity overwhelmingly and nearly unanimously liked and welcomed the initial liturgical changes.

While this meta-analysis offers a corrective to existing scholarship and provide new insight into how the laity experienced and lived through these years, one may still perhaps be prompted to wonder: so what?

Does it matter that, say, only ~60% of the laity as a whole approved of the interim liturgical changes as opposed to previous claims of ~85-95%? A majority of the laity still accepted them, and in the end, isn’t that all that is needed?[79]

While it is not the intention of this research project to attempt to adjudicate the arguments made for or against the need for liturgical reform, nevertheless these questions still seem worth brief consideration. In short, one may rightly ask: why do surveys matter at all?

If the reader would indulge me a bit longer, I’d like to explore this question with one final section, added as an extended postlude to the main article. In the face of these questions (“do surveys matter at all?” “or “why should we care if the laity liked any of this?”), another naturally arises: who were the liturgical reforms said to be for? 

This at least seems easy enough to answer: it was considered necessary first and foremost to reform the liturgy for the sake of the laity. This seems so obvious as to almost go without saying. 

The great mass of writing by the pre-conciliar Liturgical Movement is full of editorials, commentary, proposals, and claims about the need for liturgical reform in order to achieve certain things with respect to the laity in the modern day: above all else, facilitating the ability of the laity to understand and actively participate in the liturgy. The history of the four decades preceding the Second Vatican Council is likewise full of examples of various official pastoral concessions and modest liturgical reforms made in the name of the pressing needs of the laity. The conciliar documents and instructions on liturgical reform are likewise replete with references to the new needs of modern man and the changes which should be made to allow the modern laity to understand and actively participate in the liturgy. 

In light of all this, it seems that assessing how the laity received, accepted, and liked the liturgical changes is relevant and does matter.

Despite all this, it could be argued that the success or failure of the reform – or even its quality or merits – should not ultimately be judged by how well it was liked or disliked by the laity at all.[80]

Even strong unhappiness about, or a resounding rejection of, the reform by the laity does not necessarily need to imply anything critical of the reform itself. After all, according to the famous aphorism of St. Augustine, a doctor does not cease to treat a sick patient until the necessary cure has been achieved, even if treatment induces great agony and the patient begs the physician to stop.[81]

If the priests and bishops who have been entrusted with care for souls officially determined that liturgical reform was necessary for the laity–and then in turn authorized and approved academics, specialists, and liturgists to bring this reform about – would it necessarily follow that anything was wrong with the reform itself, even if the laity disliked it? Would that not be like claiming the treatment used by the physician was wrong, simply because it caused the patient pain? 

There are two main points that come to mind in response to this hypothetical.

First, it is interesting to note that this line of argument was not used as a primary defence by the hierarchy in the midst of these “interim” years. Instead, many bishops and priests took great pains to emphasize that a majority of the laity did like the changes – and would latch onto any available survey data which helped support that contention. 

For example: In 1967, amidst a great deal of turmoil in the US church and ongoing lay unhappiness about the liturgical reforms, the Newsweek survey from that year (discussed above) was prominently lauded as proof that the majority of the laity liked the reform and that the church should plunge ahead with more change. 

Martin Work, the executive director of the National Council of Catholic Men and a delegate to Pope Paul VI’s Council on the Laity, claimed that the bishops should draw “considerable encouragement” from the 1967 Newsweek survey because it proved that opposition to the reform was coming from just “an articulate minority” and that it confirmed that “change can be introduced faster than many bishops or pastors think.”[82]

The US Bishops’ Conference also relied on the survey to confirm the idea that the “very vocal opposition” which was “often heard” could be safely ignored as it only came from a minority of the laity:

Relatedly, in the face of some level of sustained lay opposition to the changes, the pope repeatedly exhorted the laity to accept them and moreover directed priests to work hard to convince the laity to accept them. He did this, for example, in his 1965 Address to the Parish Priests and Lenten Preachers of Rome.[84]

Fig. 12 – Associated Press wire news coverage of the pope’s 1965 Address to Lenten Preachers, from the Waterloo Region Record, March 2, 1965, front page. Scan via Newspapers.com, public domain.

These examples make clear that (1) claiming or proving that at least a majority of the laity did accept the liturgy changes and/or (2) convincing the laity to accept the changes were the preeminent and overriding concerns of portions of the hierarchy at the time – particularly those who were involved in approving, drafting, and implementing the changes.

Second, in the years and decades which have followed the “interim” period, many academics and clergy who enthusiastically support the post-conciliar liturgical reform have repeatedly written about the laity’s acceptance of the liturgical changes and have variously argued that (1) the changes were overwhelmingly popular, (2) that this is confirmation that the changes were a good thing, and (3) that the changes were not related to nor responsible for the significant decline in Mass attendance which accelerated during those years.[85]

Some have even developed theological concepts which hinge upon understanding the conciliar and post-conciliar era specifically through lay acceptance or rejection. Concepts like, for example, “reception as an ecclesiological reality,”[86] that “popular reception of the liturgical reforms was something ‘essential to the ongoing identity of church as church’,”[87] and that how these things were received throughout the church “was no more or less than the extension or prolongation of the conciliar process.”[88]

In my view, all of this serves as a definitive answer to the hypothetical posed at the start of this postlude. The laity’s opinions about the interim liturgical reform do matter – both in general and specifically with respect to evaluating the success or quality of the reforms – because lay approval and acceptance of the reforms has from the beginning been the self-stated primary goal of the hierarchy and those most closely associated, or who most strongly support, the post-conciliar changes.

There is one final consideration which I believe warrants brief reflection, and which further complicates the idea of the hypothetical objection above (i.e., that lay acceptance of the reforms is irrelevant to their quality or success or necessity). It is the case of the official liturgical role known as the “Commentator.”

A “commentator” is a liturgical role first officially established for the Latin rite by Pope Pius XII in 1958. In De Musica Sacra – Instruction on Sacred Music, issued a month before his death, Pius XII introduced several significant liturgical developments, including an official framework for the participatory Latin “Dialogue Mass” and the liturgical role of “commentators.” A commentator was a cleric or a layman who would provide vernacular translations and ongoing explanatory commentary while the priest was saying the mass in Latin.[89]

The purpose behind the institution of the commentator given in the document was, as could easily be guessed, for the sake of the laity:

The liturgical innovations of De Musica Sacra were not viewed as strictly obligatory in a maximalist sense, but rather strongly recommended and highly encouraged.[91] Because of this, many dioceses worked to adopt or promote these practices to some degree, and it was to assess the progress of the implementation of precisely these methods that Rev. John Corrigan conducted the 1963 survey concerning these programs of participation discussed at the beginning of this article.

Fig. 13 – Announcement of the inauguration of the Archdiocese of Seattle’s multi-phrase program to implement congregational according to De Musica Sacra of 1958, including the implementation of “commentators.” From the Catholic Northwest Progress, December 4, 1964, front page. Scan via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

With the encouragement of liturgists and many diocesan programs to implement these new methods, the use of the Latin Dialogue Mass and the use of liturgical commentators became fairly common and widespread. But there was one small problem: the laity did not seem to particularly like them. 

Commentators in particular were the source of persistent unhappiness, particularly the incessant noise created by the electrically amplified commentary and in some cases less than edifying or helpful nature of the content. In 1961, an American layman with a popular syndicated opinion column – published in 25 diocesan newspapers throughout the United States and Canada for a total circulation of one million readers – expressed starkly negative sentiments about the situation:

Fig. 14 – A collage of contemporary depictions of commentators. At left, a photo of a commentator from a liturgical guide published in the Madison Catholic Herald Citizen on November 14, 1964; used with permission.” At right, an editorial cartoon depicting the New Liturgy as a “symphony of confusion,” including a representation of a commentator in the man at the podium in front of the altar; from The Clarion Herald, January 14, 1965, via Catholic News Archive, public domain.

Despite the somewhat negative associations surrounding the role of commentator, by the time the very first liturgical changes were implemented in late 1964, it had become viewed as the lynchpin to the success of active participation and the liturgical reform in general. In the words of one ‘explainer’ from a diocesan newspaper in November 1964:

Commentators were employed essentially universally with the implementation of the New Liturgy beginning in 1964, but there was also an overwhelming and consistent backlash from the laity against them. A wide range of complaints about commentators can be found in diocesan newspapers throughout the country, many of them from people who dislike the liturgical changes. Some of these letters are angry rants, some are measured and insightful critiques, and some are laugh-out-loud funny.[94]

Indeed, one priest even opined at length that he believed that the laity would not ultimately accept the liturgical reform at all unless something was done about the commentators (emphasis added):

In some cases, the backlash from the laity against lay readers and commentators was so strong as to cause priests to reverse the changes. As one priest from Iowa related: “My people were critical about the choice of lectors. They asked what we have a priest for. I dropped the lectors.”[96]

Archbishop John Dearden of Detroit similarly changed course due to lay opposition. In September 1965, Dearden released a statement in response to a diocesan survey about the New Liturgy which had recorded overwhelming lay unhappiness with certain liturgical practices. One of these practices was the commentator, which prompted Dearden to issue the following directives to reduce the role (emphasis added): 

There were also many people who liked the liturgical changes (in general) but disliked commentators![98]

Even some of the men who actively served as commentators, and earnestly tried to have an open mind, strongly disliked it:

All of this provides helpful detail and additional context to what was known from national surveys: the clergy supported commentators – and other liturgical changes which were specifically for the laity – far more than the actual laity themselves. As shown below, from the 1965 Today’s Family survey, the laity (all age groups) rejected commentators outright, while they were supported overwhelmingly by seminarians (high school and college):

Fig. 15 – A table of results from the 1965 Today’s Family survey, summarizing how the laity liked certain liturgical reforms which were specifically made for the laity themselves, compared with how seminarians liked those same reforms. Image by the author.

Finally, then, we can revisit the question from the beginning of this section: who are commentators for? Why do they exist?

This novel liturgical role was explicitly created for the laity in 1958. It was expanded and relied upon heavily in the “interim” liturgical reforms between 1964 and 1968, and was even confirmed and incorporated into the revised Roman Missal of Paul VI and the subsequent liturgical books published after 1970. 

Yet, as we have seen, from the beginning the role of commentator was disliked. Within the first two years of the first postconciliar liturgical changes it was detested and rejected by a majority of the laity. Even many of those who liked other parts of the New Liturgy disliked the commentator.

Here then is a particularly useful test case for the original hypothetical question: do surveys matter? Does lay unhappiness or rejection of liturgical reform actually matter regarding the purported goals, effect, or quality of the reform?

With commentators, we see a liturgical reform which exists solely for the laity and which has no other function whatsoever. It seems exceedingly difficult, therefore, to imagine how the laity’s hostility, disapproval, and rejection of this reform could be separated from evaluating its necessity or success.

This is the end of Part 2 of this series, The “New Mass” of 1964: Popular reception of the first post-conciliar liturgical changes. Links to the other parts of the series can be found here: Main Page, Series Intro, Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, and the Series Conclusion.

[1] This 1966 survey is unfortunately of limited usefulness as it is deeply flawed and unreliable. For a detailed exploration of this survey, see this section below.

[2]  In addition to referencing a 1980 “ballot of issues” conducted by the Universe newspaper in advance of the 1980 National Parish Congress in the United Kingdom, Harris also mentions a 1969 letter from Rev. F. A. Miles (secretary to Cardinal John Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster) to a laywoman, dated May 22, 1969. In the letter, Miles references a diocesan questionnaire which had been distributed to parishes in London some time prior to 1969. Because the details of this questionnaire are not given (e.g. date administered, number of parishes surveyed, number of parishes responding, specific responses or other data, etc), it has not been included in this analysis of surveys.

[3] The Oxford Handbook of Vatican II deserves brief comment. It is a collection of articles on various conciliar topics with a heavy emphasis on reception and implementation. The chapter “The Constitution on Sacred Liturgy” (pp 148-166) offers just a few generalized paragraphs on reception and resistance to the liturgical reforms with no specifics and no mention of surveys or polls of the laity. The chapter “The Reception of the Second Vatican Council by Traditionalist Catholics” (pp 360-378) almost exclusively focuses on the period from the announcement and publication of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969-1970 onward, with only a few sentences offered about the liturgy between 1964 and 1969 and without any mention of surveys or polls of the laity. The chapter “Reception of Vatican II in Asia” (pp 638-656) contains only one sentence about the post-conciliar liturgical changes in the Latin rites, saying that vernacular translations resulted in more lively liturgical participation and inculturation without references to opinion surveys and without acknowledging the deeply distressing history of violent ethnic conflict between over liturgical vernaculars. The chapter “The Impact, Reception, and Implementation of Vatican II in Africa” (pp 657-677) gives only a few general comments on liturgical change and resistance–including the revealing remark that “African bishops and priests are to blame for resisting post-conciliar liturgical adaptation, whereas Dutch missionaries led the process for creative liturgical adaption.”–with no specifics or polls of the laity. The chapter “Reception of Vatican II in Latin America and the Caribbean” (pp 676-694) allots only four paragraphs to discussing the liturgical reform and makes reference in just one sentence to “stubborn resistance towards renewal” without any specifics or opinion surveys. The chapter “Reception of Vatican II in North America” (pp 695-712) only briefly mentions the liturgical changes, summarizes the situation as “the broadly enthusiastic welcome given to these liturgical reforms,” and does not reference or cite any surveys or specifics. This chapter does cite Chinnici’s 2003 article, which in turn relies on just one 1966 survey as the basis for sweeping claims about acceptance, but does not cite any surveys directly. The chapter “Reception of Vatican II in Europe” (pp 713-734) likewise gives just six paragraphs on the liturgical changes and, for the first time in the book, makes reference to one survey of the laity conducted in 1980 in Scotland. Unfortunately, as the survey is not named or cited and no other information is given, it is impossible to further explore the survey and I have thus excluded it from the list of surveys found in existing scholarship. Finally, the chapter “Receiving the Vision of Vatican II in Oceania” (pp 735-753) contains barely more than one short paragraph referencing the liturgical renewal and does not discuss or cite any surveys of lay opinion.

[4] William C. McCready, Changing Attitudes of American Catholics Towards the Liturgy: 1963 to 1974 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1975) page viii.

[5] McCready, Changing Attitudes, pp viii-ix.

[6] In the decades before the council and even during the council itself, there were many articles, proposals, claims, and arguments regarding the need for reform in the liturgy and many other areas besides; many of these proposals or arguments referenced or were oriented towards the reported needs, concerns, desires, or demands of the laity in these areas. Would it really have been outlandish to hope or expect that institutional church would have been interested in assessing these claims, topics, and the impact of all this on laity by rigorously studying them in an intentional way as it implemented the requested reforms?

[7] “Poll shows majority of laity wants English as part of Mass,” NCWC News Service, May 13, 1963, wire copy (domestic) page 8.

[8] “60% of U.S. Catholics favor Mass in English, nationwide poll shows,” NCWC News Service, September 9, 1963, wire copy (domestic) page 19.

[9] Rev. John E. Corrigan, Liturgical Participation in the English-Speaking World, 1958-1963 (Washington D.C: Religious Education Department of the Catholic University of America, 1963)

[10] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, pp 90-91. For more about the Dialogue Mass established by Pius XII, see the postlude of this article, below.

[11] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 92: “The diocesan summary did not offer specific information on this point but indicated the existence of widely varying points of view.”

[12] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 92.

[13] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 98.

[14] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 93. Seattle’s results are hard to measure on an apples-to-apples basis with the other diocesan examples. Whereas the other dioceses listed provided results on how parishioners liked or disliked the programs, Seattle provided results on how engaged the parishes themselves were, not individual parishioners. Seattle’s results were only given with the following categories. Parishes were either (1) “encouraging or enthusiastic”, (2) “cooperating, (3) “doing nothing or clearly opposed”. Roughly 36% of Seattle’s parishes were said to be “cooperating” (which when compared with the results of the other dioceses seems to be a clear analog to the “indifferent” category) and 2% were said to be clearly opposed.

[15] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 94.

[16] Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, page 94. In addition to the feedback from the laity, Youngstown also reported feedback from the priests regarding if these programs of liturgical participation were a success or failure. 14% of priests judged these programs to be failures, and an additional 4.5% of priests rated them as “partial failures.”

[17] Like dioceses throughout America, Durban had successfully implemented programs of active participation throughout the diocese: 84% of the responding priests reported having implemented the Dialogue Mass (“at parishes, missions, convent chapels, and Mass centers”) and 68% of respondents reported having “regular or occasional participation in high Masses.” Regarding feedback on how the laity actually liked these programs, the returns were more guarded and revealed more enthusiasm on the religious clergy participation was “‘generally very good in convent chapels’ but ‘quite a number [of the laity] remain mute’ in city parishes.”

The Durban diocesan report noted that the results on parishioner attitudes towards these programs of participation were of “mixed value” (i.e. varied opinion) and attempted to blame the lack of reported enthusiasm on the personal biases of the parish priest who was filling out the survey: “The particular bias of the priest concerned is all too clear in most cases. Those who are wholeheartedly in the movement [i.e. the Liturgical Movement, or supporting the program of participation] report tremendous enthusiasm; those not so keen report lukewarmness and even distaste. However, some replies seem to be worthy of note because they reflect objective observation. There is undoubtedly both enthusiasm and lukewarmness—occasionally genuine distaste.” Finally, the report also revealed that parishes of native Africans liked Latin more than “white” parishes. See Corrigan, Liturgical Participation, pp 90, 92-93.

[18] A few examples include: “Somehow large segments of the laity still remain unconvinced.” (Rev. Andrew Breines, “The Parishioner and Liturgical Renewal,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 28, 1964, page 3); “Most people are interested in giving the changes a fair trial,” (“Tries to Convey Idea That New Liturgy Is ‘Here to Stay’,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, March 13, 1965, page 8); and “I have heard people comment they do like the changes. It will just take time to get used to it” and “It will take a while to get used to it.” (“Reaction to English in Mass Varied,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, December 5, 1964, front page.)

[19] “Dolton Area Catholics Find New English Mass Different,” The Hammond Times, December 2, 1964, page 14. My thanks to Rev. Paul Hedman for first finding this anecdote.

[20] “Vernacular in Mass wins general approval,” National Catholic News Service, November 30, 1964, wire copy (domestic) page 1.

[21] “Approval, Reservations Greet Vernacular, Changes in Mass,” The Catholic Commentator, December 11, 1964, page 1.

[22] “Surprising acceptance, varied performance as English liturgy arrives,” National Catholic Reporter, December 9, 1964, page 1.

[23] “Surprising acceptance,” page 1.

[24] “Surprising acceptance,” page 1.

[25] “Surprising acceptance,” page 1.

[26] “Survey shows New Liturgy preferred by Catholics,” The Bayonne Times, January 8, 1965, page 16.

[27] “Lay opinions sought on Mass changes in England,” NCWC News Service, January 23, 1965, wire copy (foreign) page 10.

[28] “Interim Report: The Hierarchy’s Statement on the Liturgy,” The Tablet, February 13, 1965, page 193.

[29] “Lay opinions sought,” page 10. Almost no information was given about this survey: no mention of how many people or how many parishes were polled, no mention of how many responses were received or what questions were asked, etc. Nevertheless, it seemed to warrant mention given that so very few surveys were conducted at all. Regarding approval by age range, reports about the survey stated that “persons over 50 approved the Mass changes in about the same proportion as those under the age of 25.”

[30] “Lay opinions sought,” page 10.

[31] “Catholic Opinion of English Mass,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1965, page 34. Additional findings from the survey include: 47% of respondents judged the English translations to be “ordinary and uninspiring,” 60% disliked being told when to kneel and stand, and 53% were opposed to prayers being led by lay people (e.g., by lectors or commentators).

[32] The survey did not clearly define its terms in advance, but based on the results and the accompanying commentary and letters/notes written by the respondents, these definitions seem reasonably certain; the question: “Like English in the Mass?” was referring to the first changes implemented in November 1964, and “Like the new changes?” was referring to the changes which occurred in March 1965. The survey was announced in the May 1965 edition of the magazine, and published in the August edition.

[33] The survey included this question as it was a common argument given in favor of “the New Liturgy” that it was shorter than the former Latin Mass. However, when publishing the survey results, the editors noted that their assumption seemed to have been seriously mistaken: “In regard to the question, ‘Do you like the shortened Mass?’ a lot of people wrote ‘Are you kidding?’ on their questionnaires. They went on to say that Mass is longer than ever since the changes. But in general there was approval for ‘shortened Mass’, wherever it is shorter.” See “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” in Today’s Family, August 1965, page 6.

[34] Again, the survey did not clearly define its terms, but it seems certain given other contemporary examples that “Bible Services” was a reference to “Bible Vigils,” a flash-in-the-pan liturgical trend which reached its heyday around 1965 (Pope Paul VI even closed the Second Vatican Council with an interfaith “Bible Vigil”). For more detail on Bible Vigils, see Sharon Kabel, “Bible Vigils: Guest Article” at New Liturgical Movement, October 18, 2019.

[35] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” pp 6-7.

[36] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” pp 6-7. Being forced to stand to receive Communion was the single most disliked liturgical change of any which had come along with the New Liturgy. For more on the practice of standing for Communion, see: Nico Fassino, “‘Stand Up Like Free Men’: The modern history of standing for Communion,” at The Pillar, January 14, 2025.

[37] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” pp 6-7.

[38] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” page 8. This letter was written by Helen Stevens Drew of Metairie, Louisiana in the Archdiocese of New Orleans.

[39] In the words of one laywoman: “Everyone I have talked to dislikes and resents the changes. We are now in the sixth month of the new Liturgy and the frustration and resentment seem to be deepening.” See “Letters to the Editor: Agrees,” The Lake Shore Visitor, May 28, 1965, page 16. Rev. Frederick McManus confirmed that many liked the initial changes at the end of 1964 but were more critical of subsequent changes: “[McManus] said the people’s basic response to the Mass changes [implemented at] the end of 1964 has been favorable. But he said there still remain many specific complaints.” See “New Mass changes aimed at spurring social conscience,” March 10, 1966, NCWC News Service, wire copy (domestic) page 23. The opposite, of course, also occurred: layfolk who disliked the changes at the start warmed to them as time went on.

[40] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” page 7.

[41] “Youth Challenged to Answer Call Of New Liturgy, End Race Hatred,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, February 12, 1965, page 6.

[42] This survey was conducted in the fall of 1965, but was not published until July 1967.

[43] Wheeling College in Wheeling, West Virginia; St. Catherine’s College in St. Paul, Minnesota; The University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa; Emmanuel College in Boston, Massachusetts; Notre Dame College in Belmont, California; DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois; and St. Anselm’s College in Manchester, New Hampshire. For more details of the survey, see William J Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” in The Catholic World, July 1967, pp 199-204.

[44] William J Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” in The Catholic World, July 1967, page 200.

[45] Frankly, it is difficult to escape the feeling that Farrell was deliberately trying to minimize the stated scope of dislike of the new liturgy by only giving a percentage for “strong” opposition and nothing else. This feeling is strengthened when comparing results from a similar demographic – under 25 years old – in the other national survey from 1965; the Today’s Family poll showed that 78% liked the new liturgical changes vs 22% who disliked them. These percentages match Farrell’s exactly, and suggest that the number of college students voicing dislike of the new changes, whether mildly or strongly, was closer to 22%.

[46] Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” page 200.

[47] Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” pp 203-204.

[48] Farrell, “Student involvement in the liturgy,” page 204.

[49] “Poll show ‘sense of community’ rise among Catholics,” NCWC News Service, May 25, 1966, wire copy (domestic) page 11.

[50] Apparently OSV did not ask about Sunday Mass attendance in this poll, though it is known from other sources that Sunday Mass attendance had already begun a precipitous decline around this time. See for example, William C. McCready, Changing Attitudes of American Catholics Towards the Liturgy: 1963 to 1974 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1975) page 1: “…we can see that the year by year decline in Mass attendance starts to gather steam around 1967-1968.” See also Stephen Bullivant, Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America Since Vatican II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), and the new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper titled “Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries” by Robert J. Barro, Edgard Dewitte & Laurence Iannaccone, a helpful summary of which can be found in “Data bolsters theory about plunging Catholic Mass attendance” in The Harvard Gazette, September 12, 2025. 

[51] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 6.

[52] Rev. Joseph Chinnici has written at least four articles or book chapters on the subject of the reception of Vatican II by the laity between 2000 and 2021. Across all his publications, he has only ever cited one opinion survey to support his contention that the initial reforms were welcomed and supported by the laity – namely, this 1966 survey by Fischer, which he cites in every article and book. To give one example, in 2004, Chinnici summarizes Fischer’s survey as follows: “”In April 1966 . . . a survey was sent to one out of every seven parishes in every diocese. Proportionally distributed to urban, suburban, and rural places, the survey received a better than 35 percent response indicating that 93 percent of the 43 million Catholics in the United States liked the changes; 25 percent of the people gave them an enthusiastic reception. For the most part, the study relied on the viewpoint of the pastors who completed the questionnaire…”

This summary by Chinnici is misleading and also incorrect on several points. Not only did Fischer’s 1966 data not show that 93% of Catholics liked the changes, but the survey was only sent to roughly 1 in 17 parishes, not 1 in 7, and the survey did not involve a single lay person expressing their own opinions. It was entirely and completely filled out by priests, who merely answered their belief about the feelings of a “simple majority” of parishioners.

[53] Fischer’s editorial comments reveal his clear bias in favor of the changes and liturgical innovation. For example: “The answers indicate the dilemma facing many pastors and many bishops  – whether to continue, against the spirit of Vatican II with sets of cold, impersonal directives that indeed take the guesswork out of the liturgy but also tend to kill its spirit – or whether to allow even greater experimentation “according to the needs of different people” – with all the unrest and uneasiness that such a policy will bring to the rubrically-inclined […] Had he lived, Pope John XXIII, who decided to “throw open some windows,” today might advise patience and caution to avoid being overcome by the fresh air rushing in. We might take a little more time to rejoice like the priest of 40 years in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, who writes, “Thank God the window is open; the Church is finally reforming Herself.” See George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 17.

[54] It is impossible to adequately treat the problems of this survey here due to space constraints. For a full analysis of the 1966 US Catholic survey, and a comprehensive look at the data, see the 1966 Survey Analysis Appendix.

[55] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” page 7.

[56] In the words of one letter to the editor from August 1966: “[The survey showing] that most Catholics liked the change in the Church is surely quite a mistake. Had they gone from Catholic family to Catholic family in every parish, rather than on the assumptions of pastors in one out of 17 parishes, they would find most of them grieving the change . . . Ever since the close of the Ecumenical Council, many Catholics have heavy hearts because of the change in their Church . . . However, even though they have tried hard to accept the liturgical changes in the Mass, each Sunday gets harder and harder and finds them leaving Church feeling terribly upset for not having felt the spiritual fulfilment they have always had by attending Mass. It will please them to hear that there are some Catholic dioceses with no change and others where churches have one traditional Mass every Sunday. Lawrence Cardinal Shehan [of Baltimore] has authorized the Archdiocesan Liturgical Commission to grant permission for all Latin Masses when such a request is made by a parish priest.” See “Old Fashioned,” The Catholic Transcript, August 12, 1966, page 6.

[57] This is far from the only serious problem with Fischer’s data. For a full analysis of the 1966 US Catholic survey, and a comprehensive look at the data, see the 1966 Survey Analysis Appendix.

[58] “Liturgy Survey Rates Connecticut ‘Advanced’,” The Catholic Transcript, July 15, 1966, front page.

[59] These reports are corroborated by other contemporary news accounts of various bishops authorizing or reestablishing Latin Masses in their dioceses in 1966 as a result of resistance to the New Liturgy. This will be discussed in more detail in the forthcoming Part 3 of this series.

[60] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 8.

[61] Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 17.

[62] Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A,” page 13.

[63] Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A,” page 17.

[64] The survey data can be viewed online here: https://www.thearda.com/data-archive?fid=HARRIS67&tab=1

[65] “British Catholics in poll want Christian unity faster,” NC News Service, July 18, 1968, wire copy (foreign) page 3.

[66] “Poll indicates English priests split on use of English in Mass,” NCWC News Service, April 3, 1961, wire copy (foreign) page 5. Out of 137 diocesan priests polled, 60 responses were received; out of 165 religious clergy polled, 62 responses were received.

[67] “Letters to the Editor: Obscure or Fraud,” St. Louis Review, February 26, 1965, page 14.

[68] “Here’s How You Like the New Liturgy,” in Today’s Family, August 1965, page 10.

[69] For example: “The language of the liturgy in the Mass and divine office in seminaries will be Latin, the language of the Latin Church, which all clerics are required to know (SC art. 36, § 1 and art. 101, § l).a It will be advisable, however, to use the vernacular in the celebration of Mass on some specified days (for example, once a week) — to the extent permitted by the lawful authority for each region and confirmed by the Holy See — so that the clergy will be better prepared for the vernacular celebrations in the parishes. Thus use of the vernacular must never become the general practice at the expense of Latin. In granting the use of the vernacular, the Church does not intend that clerics think themselves freed from going to the sources or that in their preparation for the priesthood they neglect even slightly the universal language of the Latin Church.” See Doctrina et exemplo (on the liturgical formation of future priests) December 25, 1965, Chapter 1, Article 1, no. 15. The entire document is available in English translation in Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1982), pp 844-866.

[70] “New Seminary Decree Asks Latin in Mass: Liturgists, Professors Question Propriety Of Curia Document,” St. Louis Review, January 28, 1966, front page.

[71] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 17.

[72] Here I am speaking of situations where news outlets would report or comment on the results of a survey published elsewhere. This is separate from, though conceptually similar to, the situation where the author of a survey withheld data or attempted to paper over uncomfortable findings in the published survey itself (e.g. George Fischer’s 1966 survey for US Catholic).

[73] “The ‘New’ Mass,” Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, December 12, 1965, page 2.

[74] In the December 5, 1964 issue of the Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, there were several articles or editorials which described lay reactions as “varied” with both positive and negative comments instead of overwhelmingly viewed as “wonderful and tremendous.” The December 12 issue also included multiple letters to the editor expressing dislike of the new liturgy.

[75] “Poll on English Mass,” America Magazine, March 6, 1965, page 304.

[76] “Poll Says Liturgy Builds Sense Of Community,” The St. Louis Review, June 3, 1966, page 9.

[77] “Catholics show a better ‘sense of community’,” The Clarion Herald, June 2, 1966, page 4.

[78] William D. Dignes, “Ritual Conflict as Social Conflict: Liturgical Reform in the Roman Catholic Church,” Sociological Analysis, Vol. 48, no. 2 (1987), page 138.

[79]  It should be said that attempts to evaluate what lay approval of the liturgical changes means, exactly, is significantly complicated by surveys which evaluated other controversial or doctrinal questions alongside discussion of liturgical preferences. For example, the 1967 survey by Newsweek presents a particularly muddled and challenging picture.

Of those surveyed, 72% of Catholics under 35 stated that the new liturgy changes were “for the better.” Yet 80% of those same Catholics under 35 also said they wanted the Vatican to approve artificial birth control (of these, 60% were already using artificial birth control), and 30% of those same Catholics under 35 rejected the Church’s opposition to abortion. In light of such data, what kind of arguments or conclusions can be drawn? Would the support of these under-35 Catholics for “the new liturgy” between 1964 and 1969, many of whom thoroughly rejected other essential parts of the Catholic moral and theological life, be considered a positive note which validates the premise and execution of the liturgical reform?

[80] I would like to thank Mike Brummond, editor of Adoremus Bulletin and professor at Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corners, Wisconsin, for his insightful question in this line following an initial presentation of this material at the Legacies Conference at Marquette University. This question prompted me to revise and expand this section.

[81] As part of his commentary on Psalm 21 LXX (22), in Enarrationes in Psalmos (Expositions of the Psalms), Augustine says: “But when you are placed under medical treatment, you are burned, you are cut, you cry out. The doctor does not listen to your wish, but he does listen to your health.” See E.J. Hutchinson, Unanswered Prayers: A Difficult Lesson from Augustine, in Ad Fontes Journal, February 8, 2023.

[82] “Poll Of U.S. Catholics Is Called ‘Encouraging’: Newsweek Study Seen As Renewal Mandate,” The Catholic Transcript, March 17, 1967, front page.

[83] “English in Liturgy group sees ecumenical impact to work,” NC News Service, February 8, 1968, wire copy (domestic) page 11. The summary given by the US Bishops’ news service does not explicitly name the survey, but it seems clear to me that it must be the Newsweek survey, which is the only national professional survey of which I am aware which was conducted in the spring of 1967 and reported that 13% of respondents disliked the liturgical changes.

[84] The address is available in Italian on the Vatican website here. A short informal translation into English of one section about the liturgy is given below:

[85]  See, for example, Rev. Mark Massa’s work – e.g.  “Frederick R. McManus, ‘Worship’, and the reception of Vatican II in the United States,” Worship (2007) Vol. 81, issue 2; or The American Catholic Revolution: How the Sixties Changed the Church Forever (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) – or the article “A Synoptic Look at the Failures and Successes of Post-Vatican II Liturgical Reforms” by Cavadini, Healy, & Weinandy.

[86] See Yves Congar, “Reception as an Ecclesiological Reality” in Concilium (2022 Founder’s Memorial Issue), pp 31-53.

[87] Rev. Mark Massa, “Frederick R. McManus, ‘Worship’, and the reception of Vatican II in the United States,” Worship (2007) Vol. 81, issue 2, page 140.

[88] Massa, “Frederick R. McManus,” page 127.

[89] Pius XII, De musica sacra et sacra liturgia – Instruction on Sacred Music and Sacred Liturgy, September 8, 1958. The English text of the instruction can be viewed online: https://adoremus.org/1958/09/instruction-on-sacred-music/

[90] De musica sacra, no. 96

[91] The document does state that priests should work to ensure that the laity participate in the Mass: “[c]are must be taken that the faithful assist at low Mass, too, “not as strangers or mute spectators” … but as exercising that kind of participation demanded by so great, and fruitful a mystery.” Nevertheless, the document provides a gradient framework of approved methods of participation which range from following the Mass with a hand missal, saying prayers aloud, singing hymns, or engaging in a “Dialogue Mass.”

[92] Joseph Anthony Brieg, “English vs. Latin,” The Pittsburgh Catholic, June 15, 1961, page 4. Ultimately, Brieg’s dissatisfaction with the frustrating amalgamation of the Latin Dialogue Mass and lector resulted in his advocacy for the mass being fully rendered in English instead.

[93] “What will the Mass be like on Nov. 29?,” The Madison Catholic Herald Citizen, November 14, 1964, page 17.

[94] To give just two examples:

[95] “The Search for Silence,” The Catholic Commentator, June 4, 1965, page 4.

[96] George Fischer, “Liturgy U.S.A.: A Status Report,” in US Catholic, July 1966, page 17. In this survey, Fischer states uses the terms “Commentator” and “Lector” essentially interchangeably. This is because, he says, most priests had one person function as both a lector and a commentator in a single mass: “Since most pastors have combined the two functions, it might be easier to call them lectors or readers.”

[97] “Catholics Tired Of Standing At Mass, Survey Indicates,” The Herald-Palladium, September 20, 1965, page 9.

[98] To just two examples sourced from letters to the editor in diocesan newspapers:

[99] “Letters to the Editor: Disapproves,” The Lake Shore Visitor, May 14, 1965, page 7.

• Follow us on Twitter

• About
• Contact
• Donate
• Features
• Home