I don't see these 2 statements as contradictory. Look at these comparisons:
"The Bolshevik Revolution was not responsible for bringing Communist government to Russia. It was the infiltration of socialists that occurred before WWI."
Clearly we can see an earlier infiltration, but at the same time, the actual Bolshevik Revolution was the catalyst that caused the overthrow of the one (Christian) government and its replacement by a different (anti-Christian) government.
"The French Revolution was not responsible for the reign of terror, it was the earlier infiltration of France by people like Voltaire and Diderot and Rousseau."
Once again we see that it's true that there was a gradual corruption going on in France beforehand, but the actual revolution is what brought Robespierre and the other murderers to power. There had to be a cataclysmic explosion at one point. It's like a nuclear reaction reaching critical mass. It can perk along below critical mass for centuries without ever exploding.
I understand, but V2 was not a Revolution. It never called for the ABUSES that have been perpetrated in it's name. It did call, for example, for Latin to be RETAINED in the Mass. The evil done was NOT the Council but the evil bastards who subverted the Church hierarchy pre and post Council.
HERE we are in agreement.
Pio X did not issue his warnings about Modernism for nought. There were problems long before V.II, but the flagrant abuse of the Council's documents and recommendations, combined with a general 'defining deviancy down' in US society (observed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the early 1960's, IIRC) led to the critical-mass reaction you describe.