It was you who deflected from VC II to “traditional Catholicism”.
Once again, what are your thoughts on VC II? Is it “catholic”, traditional or otherwise?
I "deflected" nothing. I pointed out the fact that Vatican II, and all its ills, had their genesis in the "Traditional Catholicism" of the XIX and early-mid XX Century.
Bashing Vatican II is easy. I'm challenging folks to look a little deeper. Ask yourself the unspeakable question: "Where did Vatican II come from?"
Do you actually suppose that a bunch of morally straight, orthodox, faithful "Traditional Catholics" showed up in Rome one fine October day in 1962, and proceeded to go stark raving mad? That's absurd!
They arrived with an agenda ... many with an evil agenda. The sodomites, heretics, and infidels who showed up with an evil agenda had all been raised, educated, and ordained in "Traditional Catholicism". What did "Traditional Catholicism" do with these men? It raised them to positions of influence, authority, and power.
Bugnini, whom you execrate, was an ARCHBISHOP. Montini, whom I think you also execrate, was an ARCHBISHOP. You can't just trash Vatican II, as much as it deserves trashing, without also raising some very pointed questions about the "Traditional Catholicism" which preceded it.
Vatican II did not happen in a vacuum.