“The only spirit or ghost of a Council is the one called Holy — exorcising that from the hermeneutic is the problem, not the solution. There is no hermeneutic of reform without the Spirit of the Council; only rupture and the pride of men.”
In other words, if you reject the Spirit of Vatican II, you are rejecting the Holy Spirit. Plain and simple. Now, there are legitamate criticisms of some usages of this phrase, or some actions made on its behalf, particularly way back in the 60s, but that is not the same as throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Put another way, the so-called “hermeneutic of discontinuity” or “hermeneutic of rupture” – the idea that Vatican II created something entirely new- is the error of the traditionalists, schismatics, and sedevacantists who reject the Council, or who seek to undermine its genuine authority. (Usually with some argument that a “pastoral” council is not a “dogmatic” council. As if the Church makes any such distinction.)
The big supporters of Vatican II as a Church-changing event, as a “new pentecost” are best described as “hermeneutic of reform” or of “reform in continuity”.
Then those who say that nothing really happened at all, that really Vatican II intended no changes, are simply exercising a “hermeneutic of continuity”.
That’s my nutshell take; Would appreciate serious discussion.