Not by way of arguement, but two of the official documents of Vatican 2 are the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Sounds rather dogmatic to me; and it is the official title, not my term for it. Others see fit to tell the Church which named those two documents that they did not define doctrine or dogma. I will leave that arguement for others.
I wouldn’t try wading in too deep with her; she lacks almost any education on what the religion of the Church is about - religion here being the term for the general expression of the faith. The Mass is still the Mass; we still have an Epistle and Gospel reading (and now an Old Testament reading and a Psalm); we still have the Offering of the Gifts, the Consecration, and Communion. Prayers have changed, and we have added Eucharistic Prayers (one of the modeled on one from St Hyppolitus, if I recall correctly). But the essential parts of the Mass are still there.
To quote Pilate: quod es veritas? Is a partial truth a truth? I ask, because interestingly, it often makes the most effective lie.
You might want to broaden what you read; both this and the last pope were thoroughly in favor of Vatican 2, which the SSPX are not; who do you want to follow? Note also, both popes were involved in the Council itself in helping to draft documents, and both were considered progressives (as opposed to Ottavianni and LeFebrve).
There seems to be an unspoken idea that changes to the Church can only come about through a council. There is nothing in fact to support this. Councils have been called to address major issues; however, the Church has throughout its history changed things that were not directed to be changed by a council.
Ottaviani made his point in the Council, and did not carry the day. To presume that it had no impact is to misunderstand how the Council worked. There were re-writes of a number, if not of all, of the documents.
They were implemented because Rome saw fit to do so. Did the laity want them? By and large, the laity were then like they are now; very uneducated in the issues at all (there really weren’t a lot of lay Liturgical experts, for example; there are those few now who present themselves as experts, but their true expertise is suspect). The vernacular was widely accepted, but most people then, as now, would have no clue what you were talking about if you were to ask them about the merits, for example, of Eucharistic Prayer 3 as opposed to Eucharistic Prayer 1. Some people did not want to see Latin go, but they were then in the minority. As to other changes, many came gradually after the initial whirlwind. Again, many have accepted the changes, some have not, and some have felt the changes were not enough.
And yes, I lived through the reforms.
If you truly want to have balance in your views, you need to read something written by others than those who identify themselves as traditionalists. It might just surprise you that there are many writers who are not traditionalists who have something to say that is neither heretical nor dissenting to the Church authority. There is a Greek phrase, homoios estin homoio philon, which loosley translates “birds of a feather flock together”. The short of it is that we all have a tendency to read what we agree with and avoid what does not fit our preconceived notions.
There is also a very simplistic attitude among many that “if only…(fill in the blank)”. Reality is somewhat different.