Not at all. I’m saying the Second Vatican Council and its fallout was anything but a genuine call to holiness. It was all “talk”. It was really a call to more worldliness.
After VC II, Holy Communion while standing, not kneeling, was introduced. Later, Communion in the Paw would be allowed and patens under the chins/paws have disappeared. Friday abstinence and Ember Days (remember them?) were eliminated; head coverings for women disappeared, some saints’ feast days disappeared, many Holy Days of Obligation were transferred to the nearest Sunday, laymen distributing Holy Communion, etc.
What’s holy about any of the above?
None of those things you mention in your second paragraph were mandated by the Vatican II documents. It is the documents that are the magisterial acts to which we must heed, not the things done in their name or the wronful interpretations and implementations. We need a correct interpretation of the documents, in continuity with the continual tradition and teaching of the Church, and Poep Benedict is setting us on that path. Much of what is in the Vatican II documents themselves is not controversial. I seem to recall this year even Fellay or somebody from SSPX said that they would subscribe to 95% of it or something like that. I wish people would be careful about making broad brush cndemnatory statements about Vatican II. One ought carefully to argue about the interpretation and implementation of it, and not simply dismiss the documents themselves. It is an Ecumenical Council approved by the Pope, and some deference is needed to such Magisterial acts, enacted with the same level of authority that the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon had.