Personally, I wouldn't mind a clear (Dick-and-Jane level if necessary -- and it may be) statement from Rome defining what was intended by V II and what is over the line!
I think that would be an excellent idea. Also, while people took advantage of the vagueness to create their own interpretations, they found enough force in these docuements to impose their interpretations as binding. So it should be asked to what extent this in itself was an erroneous excess of authority (perhaps an authority they didn't have), and to what extent they actually did discover in the documents some less-than-orthodox statements that they could then use to support their authority.
I don't think VatII will ever be declared a heretical council, but I think there are things in it that definitely merit close examination and possibly could be rejected on an individual basis as heretical or at any rate leading to heretical conclusions. This is particularly true in the case of things relating to the structure and nature of the Church.
And this is without even getting into the destruction of the Mass and the radical change in the concept of the Eucharist that came out of VatII.