“I pointed out that blaming lack of evangelizing spirit on Vatican II is at most not obvious.”
That seems to be true.
“SSPX suffers from the same timidity.”
I’m not sure it’s timidity.
“That by itself would not be wrong”
I think it is wrong. I resent it.
“communal worship is in fact a part of being Catholic.”
So are holy hermits. There is no reason that people should be jerked around like puppets on strings every time they go to mass.
There is no reason I should have to dread mass. But I do dread its hand-shaking, woman-lectoring, and hootenanny slop music.
“To the extent that anyone heard of SSPX at all, it is about Latin Mass.”
To the extent that most people hear of SSPX, it is similar to hearing about Reagan through the LSM.
I don’t think, though, that the preservation of the Latin Mass is completely free of theological issues.
“Where is the theological outreach of SSPX?”
Beats me.
“What part, do you think is particularly relevant to Vatican II?”
...the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.
I think Pope John XXIII and Paul VI were such men. Even if they were not, they could not have been unaware that hordes of such men lurked ready to pounce upon any opening, or that the Church would be harmed.
“I think, Vatican II is reactive to modernism but it is not itself altogether modernist. Persuade me otherwise.”
Right now I just don’t feel up to the task. Sorry.
Do you know of anything in the Catholic faith that was strengthened through VatII? I’m not talking about the introduction of protestant elements; I mean something Catholic.
Yes, I think so as well, but the description you quoted applies to any reformer; it is not specific to the Vatican II core teachings, such as:
There is no reason that people should be jerked around... There is no reason I should have to dread mass
I agree, but the handshaking and handholding are American innovations; it is not fair to blame Vat II for everything you and I dislike in modern liturgy, even if the impetus was given by Vat II. In fact, these are worse offenses:
Do you know of anything in the Catholic faith that was strengthened through VatII?
Evangelism was strengthened: the lay apostolates flourished after Vatican II. That was my original point. Also, I think there was a need for an entry-level rite in vernacular. The Novus Ordo mass converted my formerly Baptist wife. I doubt that sitting through countless masses in utter reverence like she had done, would have happened had the Mass been in a language she did not understand.