Vatican Council II was a flawed Council and in this sense was not the work of the Holy Spirit.However we can still interpret the Council in harmony with Tradition unlike the interpretation in millions of books over the last 50 years.

     
Vatican Council II was a flawed Council but even with its particular error, it can be interpreted rationally, supporting the past ecclesiocentric ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return with no exceptions and 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with no known exceptions.

When Catholics read LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II, they are confused.Since LG 8 etc should really not have been mentioned. They refer to hypothetical cases only  and are not really objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So the Council Fathers -among them  Ratzinger and Lefebvre, made a mistake here. They did not see the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO)  and how it had become a new, false theology at Vatican Council II.

They did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and ask that his excommunication during 1960-1965 be lifted. Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication long after the damage was done.He then interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism and the whole Church followed the error.
  

Did Pope Paul VI know that he was interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion?  Pope John Paul II did not correct him.
  

Cardinal Ratzinger was churning out books with the false information and at the same time telling us about a hermeneutic of continuity with the past. This was a lie. There could be no hermeneutic of continuity when there is  a false interpretation of the Council and this was  the only interpretation of the Council, known to Pope Benedict.
 

Vatican Council II was a flawed Council  and in this sense was not the work of the Holy Spirit.However we can still interpret the Council in harmony with Tradition unlike the interpretation in millions of books over the last 50 years.

-Lionel Andrades