What a pathetic piece of literalist thinking!

You seem incapable of distinguishing between the date when a certain piece of thought happens to be written and the theological understanding that underpins that thought.

Vatican II is full of good, solid theology that is "pre-Vatican II" chronologically (because of the objective it set itself of returning to sources includes Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and ancient liturgical traditions). 

Let me out it simply for you (and this for the second time): it is not "chronology" that counts in characterizing your way of thinking as "pre-Vatican II". It means, among other things (but for me the most flagrant) that you seem to be stuck in 1950s style personal piety.  Vatican II invited us to embrace an ecclesiological vision of our baptismal vocation. I hear no echoes of that in your comments.