Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and then the Church returns to the theology of the past, the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass.

 The timeliness of Fiedrowicz’s work is partly due to his use of both pre- and post- conciliar sources: the canonical names are there, of course (Lebrun, Guéranger, Bruylants, Battifol, Jungmann, Schuster, Botte, Parsch, Mohrmann . . .), but also, and always advisedly, the heroes of the epic post-conciliar era of liturgical resistance scholarship (Gamber, Calmel, Madiran, Davies . . .), and naturally contemporary scholarship too (Barthe, Jackson, Kwasniewski, Lang, Mosebach, Nichols, Pristas, Reid, the Proceedings of the yearly CIEL conferences . . .). Even as recently published a contribution as Joseph Shaw’s important The Case for Liturgical Restoration (2019) is on the roster. Those who have recognized these names will also have noticed the international scope of the author’s scholarship: because he is a German speaker with a good command of French and English, this translation of his work gives to the English-reading public access to sources, scholarship, and insights not normally within close reach.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-best-book-on-its-subject-dr-john.html

Lionel : Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the false premise and then the Church returns to the theology of the past, the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Presently the Latin Mass is not the TLM since it is offered by priests who interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and so there is a false break with the past theology of the Catholic Church. For example, the FSSP priests, formerly SSPX priests, offer the Latin Mass in Rome with the New Ecclesiology created by their false interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is  politically correct with the Left and the Vatican.

If they did not use the false premise and the New Theology they would not receive permission to offer Holy Mass at the church Trinita dei Pellegrini, Rome.

Similarly if Rorate Caeili did not interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise, create a break with Tradition and then reject the conclusion, he would be opposed.

So now just as Rorate Caeili approves the Mass of the SSPX but not the SSPX Resistance, the owner of the web blog, New Catholic,interprets the Creeds and Catechisms with the false premise creating first class heresy.Then he goes for Mass in this condition.-Lionel Andrades