Quick answer: No; unless they contradict perennial Church teaching. And much of VC II does.
Before you told us to "Pay no attention to any Popes after Pope Pius XII. Pay no attention to the Second Vatican council," but later you stated "I have rejected neither" \V2 or Pope Francis.] Now it is much of V2 that is to be rejected.
In any case, what is to be rejected is subject to different interpretations, using fallible human reasoning, which RCs tell us cannot give assurance, thus RCs promote the magisterium as the solution to different interpretations and for assurance.
Most seem to hold that that the differences of V2 that you reject are "clarifications" and are now the standard, while you must also judge what is binding teaching in encyclicals and bulls, etc., and even the CCC, and which magisterial level multitudes of teachings fall under, and thus what level of submission is required.
Who’s on first?
Sheesh, there is NO pinning down what Catholicism teaches.
First they’re infallible, except when they’re not.
Then it’s only what’s taught ex cathedra, except when it’s not.
Then the Church wrote the Bible and uses it to give itself authority, but Tradition supersedes it.
They’ve raised hair splitting to the finest art on earth.
The Pharisees were amateurs compared to the Catholic church.
This is the dilemma of Catholics who are actually more interested in the truth. If they truly examine Catholic teaching, and not try to gloss over the inconsistencies, it is clear that there have been significant changes to doctrine and positions. Ebb Tide is right. The Catholic Church is heading to universalism.