You are right that Modernism didn't "result" from Vatican II. Modernism was with us before Vatican II but it was tragically promulgated as Catholic at Vatican II.
You seem to be saying that Vatican II was fine, but that the problem was the post-conciliar bishops that allowed bad things to come from it. No, the post-conciliar bishops and popes merely taught what Vatican II taught.
Thankfully, Catholic bishops such as Archbishop Lefebrve and Bishop de Castro Mayer saw Vatican II for what it truly was fairly early on in the game.
With Francis at the helm, it appears that more and more people are waking up too. Thanks be to God.
On the contrary, the Council was hijacked by the same Masons and freethinkers whose work would have been anathematized previously, had they attempted to publish. Even the periti were deliberately chosen from this crowd—Rahner, Yves Congar, Küng, John Courtney Murray, and many others—precisely for their “progressive” voice. They produced documents which were deliberately vague, in sharp contrast to all previous councils, which always spoke so clearly as to eliminate doubt.
It is only in this sense that subsequent bishops “taught what Vatican II taught”they were merely able to give voice, without opposition or fear of reprisal, to strange notions as a direct result of the Council’s ambiguity.
Thankfully, Catholic bishops such as Archbishop Lefebrve and Bishop de Castro Mayer saw Vatican II for what it truly was fairly early on in the game.
Yes (though not, alas, before signing those same documents). We have His Eminence to thank for preserving the faith whole and entire, at great personal cost.