Bottom line is that I wonder how much can actually be blamed on Vatican II, when there were other factors at play (demographic changes, communication changes, technological innovation) which may have changed the dynamic instead.Not a great deal. Vatican II often used the vague language that accompanies consensus building. Its greatest flaw was a lack of clarity.
For the liturgy, for example, it indicated that Latin was to remain the norm, but that the vernacular could be used for some portions (such as the readings, one supposes). It indicated that Gregorian chant and then polyphony were to be the music. You can’t find a reference to what goes on in most modernist parishes, things like guitars and folk music.
I could probably go on for quite some time, but it would get boring. There are somethings in V2 I didn’t like, but for the most part it wasn’t so bad once you actually read the documents. What is bad is what the liberals claim it said, and they have been largely successful in pushing their interpretation. Both the hyper conservatives and the liberals claim that V2 changed everything and is the source of clown masses, etc.
They never seem to be able to find cites for these things in the V2 documents though. Of course, their word is good enough, right? Its only the little people who need to actually cite to something.
patent +AMDG
Have a great Easter!