Don’t let him draw you into a long debate about things you don’t really understand. He asked you to share your opinions on various documents of Vatican II and you stated that you had none. Therefore, your friend can’t criticise you for opinions you don’t have.
The documents of Vatican II are written in a theological language which makes it possible to arrive at several different interpretations. The problem is, which is the right one? Luckily, the Church is currently discussing this problem and we should have an authoritative answer to this question within the next year. I suggest that you wait for the theologians and the Church to decide how Vatican II fits in with the whole Tradition of the Church. The issues surrounding Vatican II are very complex and are best left to experts who are able to read them in light of tradition.
There are two schools of thought regarding Vatican II. The first one holds that Vatican II represents a “new start” for the Church. People who claim this view often talk about the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. They believe that Vatican II was a break from tradition, and that the Church after Vatican II was different from the Church that existed before the Council. Proponents of this view try to make Vatican II into some sort of “super-dogma” that is greater than everything that came before it. The second school of thought holds that Vatican II is simply the latest Council in a long list of Councils. They don’t see Vatican II as a break from Tradition, and they want the Council to be interpreted in light of the long Tradition of the Church. They are trying to reconcile Vatican II with the earlier Councils of the Church and deny the claim that Vatican II taught anything new or different.
Many traditionalists worry about certain clauses in the documents of Vatican II. They see that certain paragraphs can be interpreted in several different ways and are unsure about their true meaning. The traditionalists want these ambiguous sections interpreted according to what was previously taught by the Church. The so-called liberals, on the otherhand, interpret these problematic sections in ways that contradict previous Church teaching. This is why the Church needs to issue clarifications explaining the right way to interpret the conciliar documents.
Your friend has wrongly assumed that you deny the teachings of Vatican II because you are a traditionalist. However, most traditionalists do not reject Vatican II as a valid Council of the Church. They reject faulty interpretations of Vatican II which appear to contradict what the Church taught before the Council. This is why we are waiting for the Church to declare the true meaning of Vatican II; we want to see how Vatican II fits in with the entire Tradition of the Church. I would explain this to your friend, and state that you are unwilling to share your personal interpretation until the Church issues statements regarding how the documents should be interpreted.
If he continues questioning your motives after this, simply state that you believe in the Faith as expressed in the Creeds and taught in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. Profess your loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI and state your innocent preference for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
What he said… I think.