Main reasons you are Traditional and not Modern (conservative) Catholics:

[Xavier]

Dear friends, what are some of the top reasons you are Traditional Catholic? Seven of mine:

1. Because of the Kingship of Christ and the obligation of States to be Catholic: As taught in revelation and by traditional staunchly anti-liberal Popes, States, just like individuals, have the obligation to be Catholic, spread the Catholic Faith, proclaim the Kingship of Christ, and co-operate with the Church in the evangelism of the world. This was taught very clearly before the Church was infiltrated and Her leaders bullied into silence or led astray by human respect. As soul and body are united in Man, or Divinity and Humanity are united in Christ, Church and State are to be united in civil society. Their separation is the death of human society, and amounts in practice to a denial of the historical and present reality of the Incarnation and Kingship of Christ exercised through His Church.
2. Because of the Traditional Mass: The TLM is the Mass of the Ages. It is a propitiatory Sacrifice that makes atonement for sin, gives the greatest possible glory to God, and the most relief to Suffering Souls in Purgatory, dying souls etc; it sanctifies the offering Priest, and the assisting Faithful. It unambigously teaches the Priest he is offering a Holy Sacrifice to the Most High God, and is a servant making that Sacrifice to the glory of His Divine Majesty; reiterates thoroughly the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, beyond all possible ambiguity, and can hardly be sincerely offered by someone who does not have the Catholic Faith about what the Mass is.
3. Because liberal ecumenism is bad (and hardly defined and understood differently by everybody) and has terribly harmed the cause of Catholic Evangelism: Liberal ecumenism, and interfaith dialogue, in practice allow it to be understood that there is no need to evangelize or be converted, no need for missions as much as for "dialogue", and choose to make war on God and promise a false "peace" among man through religious indifferentism and allowing "universal salvation" to be taught, as if hell did not exist; rather than that true Peace among men that comes only from giving glory to God and loving our neighbor; and from entering or remaining in the Unity in the Truth of Faith, and in Love, in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.
4. Because of EENS and the dogma defined at the Council of Florence (the formula of St. Fulgentius): which, in one sentence, says that all who hope to be saved must have become Catholic before death. This doctrine, for "pastoral reasons" has been allowed to become confused, and is shrouded in very ambigious words, with all possible views being openly taught without censure - including strict EENS, explicit faith in Christ being necessary, implicit being possibly salvific, atheists being saved, to open and outright universalism, to all other such things - till the Faithful hardly know anymore what EENS means or is supposed to mean.
5. Because of Pope St. Pius X and the Oath against Modernism: There is, in the Oath against Modernism, all that is necessary to destroy all errors of all time. Indeed, in the first three sentences, we see the way. All that remains is for Theology to explain them in more detailed terms, as Thomistic Philosophy does, and the way to the refutation of all errors is clear: God's existence is proved against atheists and agnostics by philosophy, natural law, reason, design, science etc. Christ's miracles and prophesies, and fulfilment of prophesies, is shown from a study of history, especially the Old Testament prophesies; the New Testament Gospels and Epistles are shown to be historical biographies and documents that teach and explain what Jesus Christ really did and taught, and how He is the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world; then, from Scripture and Tradition, the obligation of all Christians to become Catholic and return to the Catholic Church is established, from texts of the Apostles and Prophets, and Church Fathers. In this way, all are shown their obligation to become Catholic Christians to be saved. This could be done at a future Ecumenical Council, which must be dogmatic, and use the anathema etc. Ven. Fr. Holzhauser prophesies that such an Ecumenical Council will happen.
6. Because of the demonstrable decline in vocations after Vatican II, even the years immediately following, especially compared to the years immediately preceding: this well documented fact needs no further elaboration. If the pace of growth in vocations to the Priesthood, for e.g., had remained at pre-Vatican II rates, there could be about 1.2 million Priests in the world by now. There are 420,000, about 30,000 less than 50 years ago, while there should be hundreds of thousands more. And therefore world evangelism suffers terribly. Male and Female religious orders also were hit. About 1000 Catholics per Priest is ideal and up to 10,000 people in the world per Priest, whom he must help save, is fine. Every Bishop could preside over about 100 Priests, and there could be 1 Cardinal for every 10 million Catholics, as at present. The Pope, as Chief Shepherd and Supreme Pastor of the whole Church, must feel himself personally responsible for saving the souls, and expiating the daily sins, in co-operation with Christ, of all billion Catholics, including Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and all the billions of people who live in the world. Every Cardinal for at least 10 million Catholics, including Bishops and Priests, and about 100 million people. Bishops, as true Apostles and Shepherds, for guiding their flock and all they can to heaven. And they should feel obliged for their souls in strict justice - not, as the care the Faithful are to have for the souls of their brothers and sisters, only in charity - as they will give an account for it before the Throne of God, as the Lord says to Ezechiel, "I will require his blood at thy hand" (33:8 )
7. Because of the Fifth Marian Dogma, Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces, and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, which Heaven has asked for: The conservative Fathers at the Council, who were Marian and liturgical "maximalists" (who wished to preserve Tradition as it was, according to the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins, while defining dogmas as the study of Theology advanced, and the time for doctrines implicitly found in revelation to be explicitly defined had come), not ecumenical "minimalists" (putting aside doctrine and dogma to please those who are separated from communion - e.g. to put aside the Papacy to please the Old Catholics and Orthodox, also some Anglicans - indeed the Old Catholics itself first tried this, only resulting in complete absurdity and no unity at all, showing by itself that this kind of liberal ecumenism is not any kind of way toward accomplishing Holy Unia between separated communions and the Catholic Church; then to put aside Mother Mary to please the Protestants, and indeed to put aside Our Lord Jesus Christ to please Muslims and Jews, till little by little nothing is left of our religion, and the road is paved to indifferentism and apostasy) wished to define this dogma, including Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Siri etc. The time had come for it, as also for the Papal and Collegial Consecration of Russia (an ecumenical Council was a good place for it). It would have resulted in the most easy and simplest path toward the Promised Period of Peace, and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Instead, we failed. Next time should be different, and we should choose the way of God rather than the way of men, not being like those who "loved the glory of men more than the glory of God" (Jn 12:43).

[clau clau]

my Mum.

[Michael Wilson]

Historically, the split between Conservatives and Traditionalists came over the issue of the N.O.M. There was already an earlier fracture in English speaking countries over the introduction of the Canon of the Mass in English with the false translation of "Pro-Multis" into "For all Men"; The Conservatives "caved" (as they would do subsequently do on all the points of contention), while the Traditionalist, "took their business elsewhere", as it where.  The further split came when it became apparent that the documents of Vatican II were not optional but obligatory, with Msgr. Lefebvre and his seminary being persecuted for their refusal of both the N.O. And Vatican II.
The chasm has grown wider over time, as the Conservatives have fought a slow rear guard action, falling back from one point of resistance to another. Those who started out in identical position as the Trads, would go on to hold J.P. II and Benedict XVI as great defenders of the faith.

[Gardener]

I thought I was Traditional
But then I met a Trad
He said I was conservative
I thought that’s not too bad
He said it’s all conditional
And said it was too sad
That everyone’s “Traditional”
But he’s the only Trad

[Quaremerepulisti]

Funny, I couldn't have come up with a better synopsis of the problems in traditionalism, why the pre-Vatican II Church collapsed like a house of cards, and why I am now Eastern and not Western Catholic and convinced the only hope for future of the Church is in the East.

The verdict of history is against traditionalism, regardless of what position you may take on Vatican II, sedevacantism, and other related matters, and how inflexibly and boomingly you proclaim traditionalist talking points.  If all this were true, the Church should have been able to triumphantly withstand any and all attacks.  But, it was not even primarily a charge from the outside to blame; the Church was (insofar as it is possible to say so without running afoul of dogma) paralyzed by a virus or a cancer eating it from within.  As former poster Greg never tired of repeating, results matter.  All traditionalism can ever hope to do is get things back into a state of remission.  But the disease will still remain.  The fact of the matter is that the pre-Vatican II Church was seriously, seriously sick and Vatican II itself was just a manifestation of a symptom, not the disease itself as traditionalists continuously (and quite delusionally) continue to pretend; and that much of soi-disant orthodoxy was in fact just tribalism, Catholic-style.

The above is crystal clear; what is not so clear is the exact origin and nature of the virus.  But from where I sit, it seems to be largely due to arrogant triumphalism and authoritarianism - things which are never seen as vices by trads, as far as I can see, but either never identified as such or even portrayed as virtues.  For all the above in the OP is: clericalist, feeding clerical vanity and desire for importance and power; sin-centered, focusing on appeasing an angry God instead of theosis and doing good; intellectually vapid and epistemically closed, not convincing at all to anyone outside the epistemological echo chamber; fostering the most saccharine and syrupy piety, again at the expense of theosis; and finally fostering cheap psychological manipulation at the expense of cultivating real virtue in others.  In short, a caricature of what Christianity is supposed to be all about and a superficial focus on externals.  You'll indignantly and angrily deny all this, I know.  But the fact that you will react with such anger betrays the fact that you fear - at least on some level - that I might be right.  It is the same anger with which atheists react when presented with evidence for intelligent design.

[Sempronius]

What do you mean by ”pre Vatican 2 Church”? The whole Catholic Church then?

[Kreuzritter]

  Ah, yes, because Eastern Christianity positively boomed around the time of Vatican II and is making rapid headway through theosis to this day.

Back on planet Earth ...

[Kreuzritter]

You heard it here first, people: the Kingship of Christ, the Mass as sacrifice, the Athanasian Creed, and the Mediatrix of All Graces, all

"... clericalist, feeding clerical vanity and desire for importance and power; sin-centered, focusing on appeasing an angry God ... intellectually vapid and epistemically closed ... fostering the most saccharine and syrupy piety ... and finally fostering cheap psychological manipulation ..."

And leave those poor Modernists alone!

[Kreuzritter]

What do you mean by ”pre Vatican 2 Church”? The whole Catholic Church then?

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe Pastor Bob touched a curious young Quare in the sacristy one morning.  And part of him is still not sure how he feels about that. It would explain a lot, not least of all his taste for drama and hyperbole.

[Davis Blank - EG]

It's been said before but I suspect that if we were writing a century ago we'd be discussing how Orthodoxy collapsed like a house of cards to atheistic communism.  I'm sure we could round up a list of things, spiritual and cultural, and use the fall as evidence of their failure.  Meanwhile we'd be praising the (seemingly) robust Catholic Church.

Sure, Orthodoxy is not Eastern Catholicism, but there are many overlaps.

Turning to the original question (but not quite fully departing from my previous comment), it can be as simple as looking around and seeing the disaster around us.  As was rightfully noted, results do matter, and Jesus said so in other words as well.  If we're on the wrong path then the correct action to take is to backtrack.  The question is then to backtrack how far?  Some backtrack to Pope Benedict XVI, others to Vatican II, others to Pius X, some back to Vatican I, others reach far back to the Revolt, and a few go back to St. Thomas.  But it does not end there, for you can continue backtracking as problems will always be discovered along the trek back.  Ultimately I suspect you will end up back in the Garden and determine that the path went astray at the fall.  As this is something only Jesus fixes and only on the other side of the veil, there is no way for us here and now to reach perfection.

Thus we are left with a variety of imperfect steps to take.  I do not slight those whom think we merely need Pope Benedict to return, nor do I to those whom think that VII popped out of the blue, and if only not for that, we'd be ok.  These are all steps taken in the right direction, towards what is ultimately a goal we can never here on Earth reach.  Personally I think the hyperfocus on logic following St. Thomas was very disastrous for the Church, but its not as if things were all hunky-dory before then, nor is it the case that logic was not used by early Church Fathers to unravel core mysteries of the Faith. 

Again, its the case that we live in a fallen world, and are going to often be served a big bowl of unpleasantness.  We're getting a triple serving today, but the Church has had disasters of similar magnitude before such as during the Arian heresy.  Eastern Christians had their fill last century and had we been discussing them then, we'd perhaps be like Job's friends explaining to them that they must have done something wrong for such to befall them.

[TheReturnofLive]

Funny, I couldn't have come up with a better synopsis of the problems in traditionalism, why the pre-Vatican II Church collapsed like a house of cards, and why I am now Eastern and not Western Catholic and convinced the only hope for future of the Church is in the East.

This whole statement is a paradox.

Your entire legitimization of your own identity as an Eastern Catholic is the fact that you are in communion with the "Sola Cathedra Petri", Rome herself, the preserver of orthodoxy and all that is holy, where Peter's burial and where he himself sanctified it with his own martyrdom, the "preserver of sanctity" when Constantinople was a whirlpool of heresies....

...Yet you firmly believe that Rome has caused her own self-destruction promoting ideas harmful to one's own soul, that the scholasticism from Rome has only led to horrendous consequences for people spiritually, that Vatican I was a result of narcissistic submission to authority, that Rome arrogantly creates more and more outlandish doctrines in order to maintain it's own infrastructure and claims, that Vatican II is the result of Rome's selfishness and powerlust, etc.


I know that many Ukrainians at the time of the Union of Brest never really actually converted to Catholicism theologically (after all, they initially refused any association with the Feastday of Corpus Christi, viewing it as a liturgical abuse at the time, and demanded leniency in how they could view Purgatory), and they like to pretend that they are simply "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" (Which is like saying you are a Roman Catholic in communion with Anglicans), even going to the extent of venerating Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Photius, and Saint Seraphim Sarov privately

But by being in communion of Rome, you must submit to the Magisterium of the Church. This includes all the dogmatic, scholastic definitions put forward by Rome - Purgatory, Indulgences, Augustinian Original Sin, yes, even the Immaculate Conception, which says that the Virgin was conceived without Original Sin through the Merits of Jesus Christ, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, accepting all the Sacramentals and Devotions accepted by the Pope as beneficial to one's soul, accepting all the Saints canonized by the Pope as beneficial to one's soul, etc.

Refusal to do so leads one de facto excommunication by the judgement of Rome herself, in the case of dogma and morality, the latter two disciplines leading one to strict penalties.

Weren't you the one who argued that I should blindly submit to Rome in all instances for epistomelogical certainty? Yet you dare to make such treacherous claims against Rome's dogmatic claims! Talk about the Blind leading the Blind!

Finally, it's absolutely foolish to believe that Vatican II has left the Eastern Catholic Churches untouched.

Ever wonder why the Byzantine Catholics now commemorate, officially and liturgically, non-Catholic Saints in their calendars after Paul VI? Ever wonder why now the Chaldean, Ethiopian, and Maronite Rites now have the Priests face the people? Ever wonder why the Eastern Rites now permit secular music in their liturgy (as shown in all three liturgies below)? Ever wonder why - for a lot of Eastern Catholic Churches - fasting is abolished?

What about the Charismatic Movement and Liturgical Abuse explicitly endorsed and approved by the Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy, and all the fasting abolished?

You claim there is a splinter in your toe, and you bash your toe with a hammer to get rid of the splinter!

[Maximilian]

It's been said before but I suspect that if we were writing a century ago we'd be discussing how Orthodoxy collapsed like a house of cards to atheistic communism.  I'm sure we could round up a list of things, spiritual and cultural, and use the fall as evidence of their failure.  Meanwhile we'd be praising the (seemingly) robust Catholic Church.

Yes, it's true that we might very well be saying just those things if we were having this discussion 100 years ago. But we'd be entirely wrong.

Russia might have been the most prominent example, but it was by no means unique. Communist revolutions were happening all across Europe and the world, including many Catholic countries.

100 years ago in 1919 Catholic Hungary was under the rule of the Communist Jew Bela Kun.

All of the most prominent Catholic countries had fallen to anti-Catholic masonic revolutions.

Italy
Spain
France
Mexico
Germany's kulturkampf
etc.

The first domino fell the very week that Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility. The bishops were forced to flee from Rome only days after the vote as the masonic revolution conquered the Papal States.

[TheReturnofLive]

Ah, yes, because Eastern Christianity positively boomed around the time of Vatican II and is making rapid headway through theosis to this day.

Back on planet Earth ...

The real question is, which Church has survived Communist infiltration and the idea of religious indifferentism?

[Non Nobis]

My main reasons for becoming a Traditionalist in the first place (starting at about age 12!) match pretty well with clau clau's and Michael Wilson's:

my Mum.

For me, it was my Mom and Dad, and especially Mom's brother, a priest.  My uncle never said the Novus Ordo Mass in his life, and wrote the forward to a (then) well known (in the trad world) book about the English translation of the Canon of the  Novus Ordo Mass making it possibly invalid.  He convinced my Mom, and she convinced my Dad, and the rest is history in my family (well not quite all of us...).
       

Historically, the split between Conservatives and Traditionalists came over the issue of the N.O.M. There was already an earlier fracture in English speaking countries over the introduction of the Canon of the Mass in English with the false translation of "Pro-Multis" into "For all Men"; The Conservatives "caved" (as they would do subsequently do on all the points of contention), while the Traditionalist, "took their business elsewhere", as it where.  The further split came when it became apparent that the documents of Vatican II were not optional but obligatory, with Msgr. Lefebvre and his seminary being persecuted for their refusal of both the N.O. And Vatican II.
The chasm has grown wider over time, as the Conservatives have fought a slow rear guard action, falling back from one point of resistance to another. Those who started out in identical position as the Trads, would go on to hold J.P. II and Benedict XVI as great defenders of the faith.

This matches my "family understanding" of traditionalism (Michael and I do have similar backgrounds).  My father, mother, and uncle have all passed away.  But I think  I was lucky to be exposed to their good reasoning and find it makes good sense, by my own reasoning now.

As to why I continue to be a traditionalist in the face of all that has gone in the Church since I was young:  I think there is too much GOOD still in the Church and in its ENTIRE HISTORY and in the Sacraments, Saints, and Popes who said GREAT things,  etc. to be explained by anything other a path starting with Christ as the founder of the Church.  Why there is evil - why we've wandered off the path and almost made it invisible and misunderstood it over the years is another  HUGE question, but the underlying path is still there.  It's like the "how can there be a God when there's so much evil in the world" question.  I don't know about the overwhelming evil, but it is the GOOD that really needs explanation: the solid core of goodness that requires a God; the solid core of spiritual good in the Church that requires God to have been its founder.

It is basically my reason, my perception of truth, goodness, and beauty, and my "Catholic sense" that makes me see traditionalist practice and beliefs as closer to Christ's path for the Church than any other. I'm not going to try to lay out or defend my reason (etc) here; of course they can be disputed or denied, but they are what I've got now - by God's will or permission.

[Xavier]

My good friend Quare reminds me of Pope Francis sometimes: "Clericalism"! Actually, what we need are great Saintly Clerics like Pope St. Gregory the Great, who was largely responsible for the evangelism of England, as was St. Augustine of Canterbury and his 40 monks. This Pope was the opposite of whatever is called "clericalism", as all he wished was to live the prayerful, dutiful humble life of a simple monk, and almost against his will had to be forcefully taken to be made Pope. Suprema Lex Salus Animarum, it is rightly said. The Church's mission above all is to save souls. She is the only Ark of Noah. Most happy, then, are all who enter or remain in Her communion forever.

Pope St. Gregory is also the one who gave us the stupendous treasure of Gregorian chant. Even Pope Paul VI, in his more normal moments, seemed to realize the mistake he was making,"We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. 9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth." https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6691126.htm

+ABL said in 1966, "What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church. Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the Faith: let him nominate them in the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council. Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the individual bishops of their respective dioceses to correct faith and morals. It behooves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions of the pope cannot replace encyclicals, decrees and letters to the bishops. Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ."

And of course, once the floodgates were opened, trying to change everything became normal. As Fr. Wathen used to say, the Liturgy is not any longer seen as a priceless Treasure that Tradition has handed down to be safely guarded and preserved inviolate; but, something that can be spontaneously changed into anything the Priest and people want it to be.

Archbishop Lefebvre always had the heart of a missionary and shepherd for the people he evangelized, first for the people of Africa, whom he loved; then for his own beloved France, and all Europe, which was about to undergo the "free love" revolution and many frightful crises; Archbishop Lefebvre prophetically saw early on that Catholic publications, Catholic schools, Catholic seminaries had fallen to frightfully low standards in such a short time, and were not at all prepared or equipped to deal with what was coming.

I'm not for "doom and gloom", but please note the statistics below carefully; it should indeed, as Kenneth Jones writes, be a spur to action. Michael Davies documents some facts. Thankfully, the vocations crisis is not insoluble, and if proper steps are taken now, the next few decades can be different.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/statistics.htm

When Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council in 1962, the Catholic Church in America was in the midst of an unprecedented period of growth. Bishops were ordaining record numbers of priests and building scores of seminaries to handle the surge in vocations. Young women by the thousands gave up lives of comfort for the austerity of the convent. These nuns taught millions of students in the huge system of parochial and private schools.

The ranks of Catholics swelled as parents brought in their babies for Baptism and adult converts flocked to the Church. Lines outside the confessionals were long, and by some estimates three quarters of the faithful went to Mass every Sunday. Given this favorable state of affairs, some Catholics  wondered at the time whether an ecumenical council was opportune-----don't rock the boat, they said.

        Even some in the Vatican have recognized it. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: "Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI  ...

Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States  dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020,3 there will be about 31,000 priests-----and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there 1 are aged 30 to 34.

Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700-----a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000-----and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.

Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.

Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms-----converts-----in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.