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.
First let's look at the reality on the ground before we worry about the ideology behind it. In actual practice, Vatican II has been a major revolution, comparable to the French or the Russian revolutions in its global impact. An institution that plays a major role in the lives of 1 billion Catholics, and which has a strong secondary effect on the remaining 5 billion humans on the planet, turned its entire belief system and its system of governance entirely upside down. This has changed everything. And the effects are continuing to ripple outwards. In the Catholic Church of today, nothing is the same as it was in 1962.
Secondarily we can look at the ideology behind this revolution. Did it happen by accident, as you seem to believe, or was it planned and executed by certain people who knew exactly what they were doing? It's impossible to know with 100% certainty. But all the evidence points towards an engineered coup.
During the first month of the first session, the liberals executed a trademark play. They introduced a motion to scrap all the prepared programs [schema] that the Vatican had spent 3 - 4 years preparing, and to replace them with new outlines that would be created by newly-formed committees. When Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the Roman Curia, rose to protest, they turned off his microphone. Soon the revolution was in full swing, and it was clear to the bandwagon-jumpers which way to jump -- get on board the revolution or get left behind with old, practically-blind Cardinal Ottaviani. If you wanted to be on the key committees, if you wanted to have a position of power, if you wanted to be appointed and promoted, you had to get with the program.
Was it merely a coincidence that Weakland was named to the Consilium or that Bishop Hallinan (the founder of the group that would later become "Bernadin's boys") would lead the liturgical revolution in the United States?
No, this was a revolution -- it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. If you were a young Michael Novak who wanted excitement and "sex every day, or even more often," it was the best of times. If you supported the ancien regime, the traditional Catholic faith, it was the worst of times.
It did call, for example, for Latin to be RETAINED in the Mass.
I don't think of you as the kind of person who would be fooled by that kind of language. That was just "wallpaper." At the same time, Sacrosanctum Concilium also called for a total re-writing of the Mass. The vernacular was to be used for all parts that pertained to the people (are there any parts that don't?). All "accretions" were to be removed. The Mass was to be made relevant to the people and inculturated. It was a carte blanche license to destroy the Roman Rite and replace it with a protestant service, as we have seen only too well. Sure, they always toss in a couple of traditional-sounding phrases. Those might have fooled a few people back in 1962, they even fooled Archbishop Lefebvre back then, but this is more than 40 years later. We should know better by now.