Repeal and replace!
This is the real problem with Vatican II, in my opinion and Schneider doesn't really address it. Why are there ambiguous statements in these documents? This is the elephant in the room and it has taken the all hanky panky surrounding the "ambiguous statements" in Amoris laetitia to open my eyes and see it.
IMHO, the ambiguous statements of Vatican II were put there for a reason, just as the footnotes in AL were put there for a reason. That reason was to facilitate the malarkey which the modernists, heretics and sodomites had planned and which subsequently erupted following the council and following the publication of AL.
I've slowly come to the conclusion that the post-Vatican II fallout, in which I include the current horrific pontificate, is a chastisement for the Church for its failure to comply with Our Lady's requests at Fatima. Specifically, the Consecration was treated miserably, the Third Secret was tossed in a drawer and forgotten for decades. The Church's response to Our Lady was faithless and so we now have a faithless pastor sitting in the Chair of Peter and wreaking havoc.
You reap what you sow although often, not immediately. When one disobeys God, He doesn't zap you with lighting instantaneously (usually). However, over time, it all shakes out and the consequences of one's sinfulness and faithlessness become apparent. I think we're at that stage now.