Vatican II was a disaster and the change to the liturgy (which was unexpected and last minute) was its outward expression and what allowed it to be imposed ruthlessly on the whole Church and, in my opinion, to bring it close to destruction.
I’m not saying that changes and reforms weren’t necessary, because there was a need for a re expression of the truths of the Faith - although there were a number of good theologians doing just that - in modern language and also in terms that took into account the development of a world increasingly based on science and technology. There was a need to treat morality not as just a legal code, but as something that came out of love for God. There was a need to simplify many practices (for example, things ranging from elaborate ceremonials that had lost their meaning to complicated religious habits that required a staff of lay laundresses to iron and maintain) . And there was a need to improve the liturgy, which was often celebrated carelessly, hastily and in a decidedly dreary way at the parish level, in most US parishes, certainly.
But there was no need to destroy anything or even to make radical changes. However, once the shepherds turned out to be weak and confused, the canny wolves simply rushed in and acted so fast, attacking not the sheep first but the shepherds and destroying those who tried to resist, that the entire Church was unrecognizable in the space of about five years. And we won’t even talk about the many shepherds who turned out to be secret wolves themselves.
It’s hard for me to say anything good about Vatican II except that I know the intentions of many if not most of the people involved in it were good. But the handful of evil people triumphed because they were treacherous and ruthless. Christ gave us his word that the Church cannot be destroyed but it was pretty hard to remember that at times.
If its supporters want to “rescue” Vatican II on its miserable 50th anniversary, they should be realistic about it and should be willing to discuss, not its supposed ideals, but its actual horrible, devastating, soul-destroying effect.
When I actually read the documents of Vatican II, the only one that I see as being problematic (in parts) is Gaudium et Spes (again, IMHO). But when I see what was done in the name of Vatican II, that's when I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Having said that, I really think that there must have been deep, underlying problems (like "Modernism" and "indifferentism" and "Americanism" -- a la "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae", that is) for a number of years prior to Vatican II. As I see it, had those underlying problems not existed prior to the Council, there wouldn't have been the hordes of Mongols waiting to storm the gate immediately on 8 Dec 1965 when the Council was closed.
Personally, I think we would do well to identify and work to correct those underlying issues.
Too many confuse the Vatican for the Church. The Vatican could be flattened yet the church that Christ established would continue in Spirit and Truth.
The U. S. Bishops interpreted Vatican II liberally. You will be surprised at much did not really get changed.