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.
“Vatican II would not come to mind like that. Certainly not by intention: it was convened to arouse the personal in the laity, was it not?”
That’s odd. What I have gotten from it is efforts to force me into the collective. I’m not to be allowed to come to Mass and focus on Our Lord. I must shake hands and greet people, not pray. Others are having kaffeeklatsches that prevent me from concentrating. Then, when Mass starts, I must stand with the others, sit with the others, kneel with the others, recite the responses with the others, sing with the others (in my horrible voice), hold hands with others to pray the Pater Noster, and then fargin’ shake hands AGAIN, this time with lots of people.
Perhaps worst of all, I must endure women lectors, an insult to the Scriptures.
It’s all very, very protestant in form. Which is not surprising, considering that the enemies of the Church who cooked up the Novis Ordo (Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble...By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.) invited protestants to help gin it up.
“A Catholic layman is a priest, prophet and king: that is the Vatican II sentiment.”
That is a protestant sentiment, smuggled into Catholicism through the great, gaping wound created by VatII.
“this is why we have the Holy Mass taking on the shape of an artistic performance”
That also is a very, very bad thing. It’s not supposed to be a performance; it is prayer.
“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.”
No, it is entirely theological.
“they are not seen as evangelizers, but as cultural watchdogs.”
I doubt that there are two pew-sitters in this entire town who have even heard of the SSPX.
“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.”
I would have to disagree. VatII created an opening for modernists to water down not only the Mass, but Catholic theology itself. They had been waiting and hoping for that opening for decades. Coming as it did in the sixties, it was the perfect storm, and it destroyed the faith of millions.
The clergy, or at least many of them, seem more concerned with making sodomites “welcome” at Mass than they do in saving their immortal souls. They treat the GIRM like the Beast in the Oval Office treats the Constitution.
“The problem of Vatican II is…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.”
I agree with the first part of your sentence, but I’m not sure about the desire to unite with the Church.
“This warm and fuzzy evangelism could not succeed, and so it failed.”
It failed even to keep Catholics in the pews. Why bother even to come to Mass if it’s just some hootenanny performance, and communion just an annoying time waster?
Catholic? Have you read Pascendi Dominici Gregis? I’d be glad to post a copy.