Vatican II.
Vatican II would not come to mind mind like that. Certainly not by intention: it was convened to arouse the personal in the laity, was it not? And indeed, not only the intention but also the documents of the Council carry that idea of personal experience of well-formed faith is a valid experience: see Lumen Gentium. A Catholic layman is a priest, prophet and king: that is the Vatican II sentiment. Further, the implementation of Vatican II, however horrible, took off with that particular aspect of Catholicism: this is why we have the Holy Mass taking on the shape of an artistic performance (sometime very good and sometime very bad).
Now, the reaction to Vatican II from the traditionalist was primarily in the re-assertion of the Baroque liturgical norm. That is, it was, it seems, primarily cultural. In this, I think, lies the lack of success of the SSPX in restoring the pre-Vatican II Church: they are not seen as evangelizers, but as cultural watchdogs.
I would say that the watered-down, confusing material of Vatican II is the consequence, not the cause, of the loss of faith in the first half of the 20 century. The problem of Vatican II is not that it does not evangelize, — it does; but in that it evangelizes wrongly. Its primary message was that salvation of Christ is not in the firm, divinely appointed sacraments and institutions of the Church but in some vague never quite succeeding desire to unite with the Church. This warm and fuzzy evangelism could not succeed, and so it failed. Good thing someone understands that.