Yes. In the '50s, the attendance was 80%, which was down from 90% in the '40s. And, in the '60s, it was down to 70%. See a pattern here?
In the aftermath of the reform Mass attendance is now in the 10-20 percent range.
As is attendance at most mainline Protestant Churches, and even old-line Baptist churches.
America is a religious country that doesn't go to church. But, America is more observant than Europe.
It would seem that a fair assessment of the question of a popular "vote" should compare the NO and Tridentine acceptance in a climate where each is fully taught and supported by the Church. In that light, the Tridentine "wins" hands down.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.
When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.
Do you remember the atmospherics at Tridentine Masses? I remember that most women said the rosary during Mass, and there were zealots who made the stations during the celebration. Why do you think they did this?
They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.
The Spirit has spoken. I'm all for a liberal application of the Indult.
But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.
I don't disagree. This among other problems was one of the reasons the Church saw a need for another Vatican Council. However the new rite was specifically promoted as a tool to reverse this trend. That never happened. If anything, the trend accelerated.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.
That is a nonsensical statement in light of Church history. First of all, what is this Protestant-flavored nonsense about Catholics not understanding the Latin of the Mass? Part of Catholic education through the centuries was dedicated to teaching this understanding. It was apparently quite successful, because Latin stopped being a popularly understood language around the fifth century, and it wasn't until the late twentieth that it was deemed incomprehensible - and in that case by people who have shown no greater devotion to a Mass in their own native language.
Secondly, why do you imagine Catholics throughout the ages chose a Mass in Latin when other worship services in their own languages were available? Mass in one's native tongue wasn't exactly a groundbreaking discovery of the Novus Ordo. It has existed in various forms throughout the entire history of the Church. Yet when the faithful were most faithful, language was not an issue. And when the faithful became less so the change in the language of the Mass did not convince them to stay.
I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.
Don't you believe the same is true of the Tridentine rite in the "popular vote" climate of today? Wouldn't the same formula apply?: Give it a fair chance and it will gain broader acceptance.
They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.
And now they are bored with priests performing the Novus Ordo. Bored to the point they avoid going entirely in numbers the old Mass never knew. Despite your characterization, the NO isn't some popular festive event people look forward to in large numbers. Most view it as a chore, as they always have. Only now, not as many bother to attend at all.
The NO has not abolished the boredom you attribute to the Tridentine rite. So perhaps your concerns about the facing of the priest and the language of the Mass were never the source of boredom in the first place.
But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.
Groundswell would probably be stretching the point, but something unexpected is certainly going on. An entire generation never taught the Tridentine rite is beginning to fill the pews where it is offered. Young seminarians are flocking to seminaries where they are trained in the old Mass. And all of this in an environment of hostility from their bishops, priests, and in large part their parents.
The Church does not (and should not) make quick, radical changes in the normative form of the Mass. These sort of issues are supposed to take generations. However, in a few generations, the normative form of the Mass question may not sound quite as ludicrous.