The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise : the innovation has come with the Irrational Premise

Intentions Abandoned and Ignored: Cardinal Montini at Vatican II, Sixty Years Ago Today

 That these intentions were later ignored and abandoned by the Consilium and Paul VI should prove, contrary to various recent assertions (notably Desiderio desideravi, n. 31), that to question the post-Vatican II reforms is in no way to "reject" the Council, whatever that means! And it should be remembered, particularly over the next year when, no doubt, much will be written about "the Council" and the "spirit of Vatican II", that the Acta Synodalia demonstrate the accuracy of Cardinal Ratzinger's words in 1976:

The problem of the new Missal lies in its abandonment of a historical process that was always continual, before and after St. Pius V, and in the creation of a completely new book, although it was compiled of old material, the publication of which was accompanied by a prohibition of all that came before it, which, besides, is unheard of in the history of both law and liturgy. And I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council...

 https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/10/intentions-abandoned-and-ignored.html

Lionel :The innovation comes with the False Premise.The innovation comes with the false philosophy with which is created bad theology.

Irrespective of what Pope Paul VI believed and did, the Council is traditional when LG 8,14,15,16, NA 2, GS 22,UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II, are seen as hypothetical and invisible cases in 2022-2023.This would be choosing the Rational Premise. Overnight, immediately we get rid of the bad new theology of the popes. The Council becomes orthodox.It  supports the past ecclesiocentrism.Test it.Reason it out with LG 8,14, 16 etc being hypothetical and speculative cases only.

Interpret the Council with LG 8 etc referring to invisible cases and there are no practical exceptions in the Council- text for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Why? Since we have got rid of the mistake that came into the Church from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF)to the Archbishop of Boston. The Archdiocese kept the Letter hidden for some three years and then made it public. Also the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney, who said there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire, was maintained right through Vatican Council II, as if this was the new approved teaching in the Catholic Church.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.Whatever is one's views on Fr.Leonard Feeeney the Council is traditional when LG 8 etc are interpreted rationally.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.In the same way extra ecclesiam nulla salus is ecclesiocentric and traditional when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to hypothetical and invisible cases always.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.In the same way the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed support Feeneyite EENS when BOD and I.I are interpreted rationally.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.In the same way the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX is ecclesiocentric with an ecumenism of return, BOD and I.I are interpreted with the Rational Premise.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.In the same way the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 29Q invincible ignorance) does not contradict 24Q and 27 Q( other religions are not paths to salvation) when 29Q is interpreted with the Rational Premise.

The Conclusion is the same with the Rational Premise.It is the same for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial Documents. -Lionel Andrades