I want to ask a simple question. Please think it through completely.
Who is more faithful to Vatican II: the priest who seeks to interpret everything the Council actually said in full accord with the historic teachings of the Church? or, is it the priest who dilutes what it actually said, claims that it said things it never said (like communion on the hand, Priests saying Mass versus populum, and removing large portions of the ordinary rules of the Mass, etc.), and clearly disobeys a number of the actual things it did say should happen (like Gregorian chant holding primacy in Mass, using Latin regularly especially at Solemnities, etc.)?
Please understand, this is not a competition, and both kinds of Priests I describe above can certainly make mistakes, but we need to ask this question! This is especially the case in these days that so many claim we reject Vatican II, or that they are the ones obedient to it. We cannot just ignore the claim of faithfulness to a Council of the Church if all the evidence is to the contrary. So, I ask, if we "hate" Vatican II -- what parts? Show me the specific passages and rules that we supposedly hate. In addition, if those speaking against us say that they are "Vatican II" Catholics, then how is that so? What are they being faithful to? Again, show me the passages.
Simple question: are those who obey or those who disobey more faithful?