http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/concilio-vaticano-ii-17692/

Vatican II: “Have a little patience, fifty years is nothing”

"Vatican Insider" interviews Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a Church historian and scholar of the Second Vatican Council, on the Golden Jubilee of Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council was a Pastoral Council that also provided dogmatic explanations. Had there ever been anything like it previously in the history of the Church?

It does in fact seem as though Vatican II marked the beginning of a new type of Council. The language that was used during it and the completeness of the texts show that the Council fathers was not as much motivated by the need to pass judgement on controversial new ecclesiastical and theological issues, but rather by the wish to turn their attention to public opinion within the Church and the entire world, in the spirit of the annunciation.
 
Shouldn’t a Council be declared a failure if fifty years on it has not been warmly received by the faithful?

Benedict XVI warned against a misleading interpretation of the Council, particularly in terms of the hermeneutics of a rift…
This is one of those cliché questions that stem from a new existential sentiment; that feeling of confusion that is typical of our times. But what is fifty years after all?! Cast your mind back to the Council of Nicaea in 325. The disputes surrounding the dogma of this Council - about the nature of the Son, that is, whether he was made of the same substance as the Father or not - continued for more than a hundred years. St. Ambrose was ordained Bishop of Milan on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and had to fight hard against the Arians who refused to accept the Nicene provisions. Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 which was deemed necessary in order to complete the profession of the faith at Nicaea. During this Council, St. Augustine was given the task of dealing with requests and fighting back heretics until his death in 430. Frankly, even the Council of Trent was not very fruitful until the Golden Jubilee of 1596. It took a new generation of Bishops and prelates to mature in the “spirit of the Council” before its effect could really be felt. We need to allow ourselves a little more breathing space.
 
Let us talk now about the fruits which the Vatican II produced. Can you comment on this?

First of all of course the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” in comparison with the Tridentine Catechism: after the Council of Trent, the Catechismus Romanus was launched in order to provide parish priests, preachers etcetera with guidelines on how to preach and announce the Gospel or evangelize.
 
Even the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be considered a consequence of the Council. I must emphasise that the form of the post-conciliar liturgy with all its distortions, is not attributable to the Council or to the Liturgy Constitution established during Vatican II which by the way has not really been implemented even to this day. The indiscriminate removal of Latin and Gregorian Chants from liturgical celebrations and the erection of numerous altars were absolutely not acts prescribed by the Council.
 
With the benefit of hindsight, let us cast our minds back in particular to the lack of sensitivity shown in terms of care for the faithful and in the pastoral carelessness shown in the liturgical form. One need only think of the Church’s excesses, reminiscent of the Beeldenstorm (the statue/image storm) which occurred in the 18th century. Excesses which catapulted numerous faithful into total chaos, leaving many fumbling around in the dark.
 
Just about anything and everything has been said on this subject. Meanwhile, the liturgy has come to be seen as a mirror image of Church life, subject to an organic historical evolution which cannot - as did indeed happen - suddenly be decreed per ordre de muft. And we are still paying the cost today.

When we are in Heaven, or Purgatory. Will will know the true fruits of
Vatican 2 in how many Souls it saved, and Lost because of its novel
teachings. I remembered Priests, and Nuns whom were very Conservative
in 1963 became flaming liberals in 1965 and afterwards.
In my experience, as a Layman that lived through this period, I DO NOT
consider Vatican 2 very fruitful, and a minus for the Church.

It seems to me that VC II was warmly received by the faithful.  Most here would argue that this is a big part of the problem.

many want to beleive in Oz.......

most pre-V2 Popes,etc were cyrstal clear.........not so with the gobbly gook of V2......

I ignore V2 much as I can, as if it did not happen.....not a head-in-sand guy, just ignore it....

Briefly afterwards came a new Council: the First Council of Constantinople of 381 which was deemed necessary in order to complete the profession of the faith at Nicaea. During this Council, St. Augustine was given the task of dealing with requests and fighting back heretics until his death in 430.

This is the scholarship that the Conciliar Vatican puts out? Yes? St. Augustine was not even a Christian when the First Council of Constantinople was taking place.

Frankly, even the Council of Trent was not very fruitful until the Golden Jubilee of 1596. It took a new generation of Bishops and prelates to mature in the “spirit of the Council” before its effect could really be felt. We need to allow ourselves a little more breathing space.

Anyone who knows Catholic history knows that this is an asinine and even laughable claim. Pope St. Pius V was not bearing any fruit? How about St. Charles Borromeo? St. Philip Neri? The Theatines and the early Jesuits?

For Vatican II's Golden Jubilee, I wish that B16 wouldn't just glaze his eyes over and present a false hagiography of the event, rather, I would like to see the record books and the meeting minutes turned over for public review.  

We can clearly see that the fruits of the council were devastating for Holy Church but someone (or group of someones) got their way.  

From a purely political or secular point of view, who gained the most from Vatican II and why is the current heirarchy (other than the very real possibility that they constitute a false church) so adamant in defending Vatican II?

It seems to me that VC II was warmly received by the faithful.  Most here would argue that this is a big part of the problem.

What an absurd statement.  The vast majority of the faithful (close to 99.99%) have never read the docuмents of Vatican II.  Furthermore, they did not "warmly" receive anything.  When the "changes" started, and being told that this was what was required by Vatican II, the faithful stopped becoming priests and religious.  The Faithful stopped attending Mass.  The faithful fell away from the practice of the the Catholic Church.  

A very small remnant remained in the Conciliar church and they were, for the most part, heartbroken over what was going on but could see no alternative.  They rejected in their hearts, without knowing it, all that Vatican II was.

The revolutionaries took Vatican II and ran with it.  Some knowledgeable people fled to the catacombs.  To this day, Vatican II is certainly not "warmly received" by anybody.  Today, the revolutionaries use Vatican II as an excuse for their apostasy while Catholics reject Vatican II as the source of apostasy.

There was nothing, even during the 1960s, that was Vatican II that can truly be said to have been "warmly received".  If anything, you could only say that Vatican II was "warmly deceived".

I think we should rely on people who were alive at the time to tell us how it was generally received.

From what I've been told my great grandmother who was alive did not approve of it or the New Mass at all.  However my grandparents generation seemed to have approved of it - to what degree they understood it I don't know.  

I remember how different the local parish was as a small boy - how different the atmosphere was.  The difference was there were a lot more people who had lived a long time in the pre-Vatican II religion.  As more people died in the 80s (including priests) and moved away things became less and less Catholic and more, how shall I put it? obnoxious.  There were fewer and fewer older hymns sung.  I think they might have even done away with May Crowning eventually.

Remnant reply:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0831-dupuy-fifty-years-is-nothing.htm