When I actually read the documents of Vatican II, the only one that I see as being problematic (in parts) is Gaudium et Spes (again, IMHO). But when I see what was done in the name of Vatican II, that's when I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Having said that, I really think that there must have been deep, underlying problems (like "Modernism" and "indifferentism" and "Americanism" -- a la "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae", that is) for a number of years prior to Vatican II. As I see it, had those underlying problems not existed prior to the Council, there wouldn't have been the hordes of Mongols waiting to storm the gate immediately on 8 Dec 1965 when the Council was closed.
Personally, I think we would do well to identify and work to correct those underlying issues.
There were definitely people awaiting their opportunity. Modernism was a reality, and the efforts to deal with it hadn’t really solved the problem. They tried to suppress it, but this wasn’t successful because it just drove it underground.
I think, actually, that many of the good theologians and bishops saw Vatican II as a possible way of restating and re-proclaiming orthodoxy and putting an end to modernist tendencies once and for all (or until the next time heresy bubbled up). They thought they’d be cutting away all of the bureaucratic accretions that prevented a clear expression of orthodox Faith.
But the Modernists had already installed themselves, quietly and secretly, during their time of theoretical suppression, and as soon as they saw this opening, they seized it. The good bishops were blindsided (this was particularly true in the case of the liturgical reforms) and had never expected this destruction and rejection of legitimate authority and even of the concept of truth.
I think they also didn’t realize how far Marxism had extended itself into the social thinking of the Church; the only people who seemed to take this seriously were some rather cranky and sometimes rather wacky elderly bishops, and people ignored them - even though they were obviously correct in their warnings.
This, of course, occurred in the context of what the Europeans call the “Revolution of ‘68,” referring to the student demonstrations and the whole current of destructive leftist thought, combined with the “sexual revolution,” that swept both Europe and the US. It was in the air.
Another thing that I think has never been examined (except perhaps by Malachi Martin) is the huge influence exercised by the US Church, whose many leftists and shallow thinkers were relentless in their Protestantizing and neutering of the Church, wanting to convert it into a bland, harmless social appurtenance of the welfare state.
So, yes, there’s a lot to be examined. I just wish somebody other than a radical fringe (that would probably be us!) would be willing to be honest about it. Instead, on the 50th anniversary, we’re supposed to ignore the wreckage and praise Vatican II for how wonderful it was.
Absolutely. It was the begining of the end of the end. They never recovered. From the priests and nuns running around in street clothes, homosexuals getting into the seminaries, grabbing the Host with bare hands, guitars all over, etc. You name it.
There's nothing that Vatican II did that was good. It was a marketing scheme on a grand scale to get more people into the church and it failed miserably.
Instead of resisting the new world crap and new age nonsense, the church caved.
**I really think that there must have been deep, underlying problems (like “Modernism” and “indifferentism” and “Americanism**
Good observation
E.g. (IMO):
33. Through his labors and his native endowments man has ceaselessly striven to better his life. Today, however, especially with the help of science and technology, he has extended his mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continues to do so. Thanks to increased opportunities for many kinds of social contact among nations, the human family is gradually recognizing that it comprises a single world community and is making itself so. Hence many benefits once looked for, especially from heavenly powers, man has now enterprisingly procured for himself.
But when I see what was done in the name of Vatican II, that's when I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Even if the intention was not to tear down the sides of the sheepfold and abandon the sheep to the wolves, it was certainly the outcome. Religious relativism is inevitable when traditions and disciplines that are visibly and distinctly Catholic have been discarded and trampled in order to appeal to those who are open to the Gospel but perhaps not to the Catholic Church. While the focus was on wooing those outside the Church, many within Her have wandered off. At best, the current ecumenical approach is based on the naive presumption that emphasizing common elements leads to conversion. This approach is similar to a business that conceals its unique, proprietary product in the back room while displaying commonly available products in the front window in an effort to attract customers. Jesus Christ - His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, His Eucharist Presence, is forgotten, reverence is abandoned, and the Church is falsely perceived as just one among many. This IMO is the rottenest fruit of VII.
It was as if Trent had been highjacked by Calvinists, and we did get a hint of what might have happened in that case in the Jansenist heresy. But what happened after the Council was that there was a rebellion in the Church by the lower clergy and by many orders of nuns, pretty much as there during the Reformation. But it didn’t start with the Council, it was that the council, like the Council of 1512, did not go “its job.” Did not contain a rebellion that was already, under the surface, already begun.