And to be honest, Lionel, I cannot determine if you are buying into the notion that heterodox innovations emanating from Vat II trump previous Church teaching, or if you are merely drawing attention to these subversive innovations.
The heterodox innovations that you see in Vatican Council II are the results of using an irrational premise and conclusion.Avoid it and Vatican Council II emerges orthodox.
The SSPX Asia for example cites:-
Saint Ignatius of Antioch: "Do not deceive yourselves, he who adheres to the author of a schism will not possess the kingdom of God." [Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3 (CH 158)].
Saint Cyprianus: "Whosoever is separated from
the Church is united to an adulteress. He has
cut himself off from the promises of the Church,
and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot
arrive at the rewards of Christ (...) He who observes
not this unity observes not the law of God, holds
not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not
to life and salvation." [De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n
6 (CH 555)].
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of
the Catholic Church, however laudable his
conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy
eternal life, and the anger of God remains on
him by reason of the crime of which he is
guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist.
141 (CH 158)].
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal
Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored
except within its fold; she affirms that all those
who are separated from her will not be saved."
[Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)].
Innocent III and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215 A.D.): "There is only
one universal Church of the faithful, outside of
which no one can be saved." [Cap. I; De fide
cath.; DS 802 (CH 159)].
"The same teaching is expressed in the professions of faith which have been proposed of by the Apostolic See; in the one which all the Latin Churches use (2); as also in the others, one which is received by the Greeks (3), and the other by all other Eastern Catholics" (4). [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Summo jugiter, May 27, 1832 to the Bishops of Bavaria (CH 159)].
So far good. This is orthodoxy.
Then the SSPX Asia cites the Letter of the Holy Office.
[Letter of the S.C. of the H. Office, Aug. 8, 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (CH 1256-7)].
The Letter has used the irrational premise ( baptism of desire cases are visible and known in the present times-1949) and irrational conclusion( and so these invisible visible cases are exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to Saint Ignatius of Antioch etc.quoted above)
You see the error?
The SSPX Asia contradicts itself.It has mixed up what is invisible as being visible, what is hypothetical as being practical exceptions to EENS.
This is an objective error. It is not just theology.
It cites the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS which says there are no excepton and then it considers the baptism of desire etc as being an exception.
Similarly for you and the SSPX would assume that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) would be an exception to St. Ignatius of Antioch and the others quaoted above?
So this is why Vatican Council II for you is a rupture with Tradtiion. It is a rupture with St. Ignatius of Antoich because of the false premise, the irrational premise.