I hear a lot that certain past ecumenical councils, such a Trent, are no longer binding on the faithful because the faithful do not accept their teachings. This is usually done with a rather afflicted view of the sensus fidelium.
Forget for the moment that this would be a bizarre paradox as to how something to be considered as binding one anyone when it would need to first be accepted.
Here's a puzzle. Most of what people have "accepted" about Vatican II is nowhere supported in the text. In fact, the text often says the exact opposite of what such individuals insist. That being the case, how could such individuals consider Vatican II to be an ecumenical council in the first place when they disagree with so much of what it says?