Another issue on "which Catholic Church?" is what we can consider to be the rippling effects of the "rewrite" that some modernists wish to accomplish. The fact that they have been successful in misleading a good number of the faithful about the history of the Church, says that at times we have "competing" (for want of a better term) ideologies at the same time in the Church. These differing views run head-on at times and can cause serious confusion to those who sincerely just want to know what is right and are uncertain of who is telling the truth.
In situations like this, a person's behavior is key; as Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruits". Of course, this is not to say that everyone who wants the second Vatican council to be a liberation from the historic faith will be obvious in their words and actions. Yet, there are a large number who behave in a way which makes it clear that they are not thinking clearly. I myself have seen a good deal of defense of modernist influence on the Church that was, shall I say, "less than logical". There are also the attacks on those who are accused of being "anti-Vatican II" (what exactly does that mean?) that come across about as pleasant as a rabid pit bull.
When someone's defense is filled with confusion and emotionalism, then their position is suspect. I read this recently from the always-enlightening Fr. Z when he characterized those who dislike strict adherence to the Catholic faith as giving the following reaction to a priest:
“But Father! But Father!”, some moaning bellyachers might be fussing. “The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ tells us – and this is the Holy Spirit talking, I know! – that we have to reinterpret everything that there ever was before that turning point in the history of the universe because we have to deal with climate change and racism and immigration. It is necessary that Epiphany be moved and it is obligatory to agree with that, because … because … OBEY! Not only obey, but also shut up. You shouldn’t say these things and we don’t want to hear them because we are walking together in a synodal process of listening to all sides except some sides … like YOURS! Because YOU HATE VATICAN II!”
OK, yes, sarcasm; dripping with it (maybe even drowning in it), but not completely inaccurate. The most specific thing that stands out is the comment about "we don't want to hear because we are listening to all sides except yours". I know of a synod on synodality "listening session" at a Catholic parish (not one I was ever pastor of) where the laity largely said they wanted more tradition, and the "results" sent to the chancery by the one who took the minutes said they were tired of tradition and wanted to modernize the Church. When caught, it was just blatantly denied.
The truth will set you free. When someone has to resort to lies to promote their position, you know that something is not right. Good fruit cannot come from a bad tree, nor bad fruit from a good tree. I think there are some pretty rotten trees out there.