Was there nothing dogmatic in the documents of Vatican II?

You have to take it at face value, because it is the pope commenting on his own council, and Pope Paul VI himself said there was nothing dogmatic in the Vatican II documents. That is a little counterintuitive, because Paul VI also had to rescue some of those documents from heresy behind the scenes: a doctrine about the Mass, a doctrine about the inspiration of Scripture, and probably a few others. So here you have the 23rd ecumenical council, sixteen documents, and we are told none of them have the character of infallibility, yet people treat some of its statements as if they were infallible. This is the ongoing problem with Vatican II. My recommendation to the Church is to clear up this whole infallibility mess. It would help enormously if, when a pope makes an ex cathedra statement according to the four criteria Pius IX gave in Pastor Aeternus, he simply signed his name and declared it an infallible and irreformable statement. But they do not do that, so we are left to guess whether something is infallible, and the liberals always play that card when they do not want a teaching to bind them.