I am corresponding with a novus order monk who is defending Vatican 2..here's what he wrote..I'd be interested to know how you would respond, I am not familiar with the "hermeneutic" part
"If I may make some descriptive markers of where I understand your position to be:
1a) Vatican II is not valid because its teachings, especially in Unitatis Redintegratio, are contrary to prior Church teaching.
1b) Your position on Vatican II can be described as a "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture;" i.e. there is such a glaring discrepancy of Church teaching--in theology, ecclesiology, salvation, etc.--before Vatican II in comparison with after.
2) It is only logical then, that the teachings of Vatican II must be wrong, because the Church cannot contradict herself.
(I don't agree with these three points by the way). I don't think this sums up your whole position, but at least describes it in more general terms.
Now some questions (with some commentary):
-- Is Our Lady of La Salette recognized by the Church?
-- Where is the true Catholic Church today in your opinion?
-- Is God's grace only at work in the Catholic Church? If yes, then how do non-Catholics become Catholic? Only by their own efforts? (This would be Pelagianism).
(Even before Vatican II, the doctrine of prevenient grace was taught, viz. the Second Synod of Orange (529 A.D.): "the Second Synod of Orange (can. v) decreed that prevenient grace is absolutely necessary to the infidel not only for faith itself, but also for the very beginning of faith" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm
In other words, God's prevenient grace is at work in the life of a pagan (and God's grace is at work in the life of a non-Catholic heretic as well). "