You make a distinction without a difference. I note that radical "traditionalists" and radical modernists make the same error of viewing Vatican II as a rupture with the previous 1900 years of the Church.
It was not, and is not, and all the hideous abuses committed in the name of the spurious "spirit of vatican 2" are no more Catholic than the silly idea that a rogue bishop has the authority to go looping off on his own, creating an ecclesial community in defiance of the Pope.
A plague o' both their houses.
Sure it is. We were warned. "Starting about 1960 it will be more clear".
I consider those who try to make a distinction between Vatican II and the "abuses" of Vatican II the ones to be guilty of 'distinction without a difference'.
The proof is in the rotten fruits thereof, misinterpreted or not.