Vatican II didn't define any Roman Catholic doctrine and its decrees on religious liberty and ecumenism, the real bone of contention with some traditionalist groups, are no problem but it was exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.
The legitimate liturgical movement was wonderful and indeed influenced by the Orthodox.
The aftermath of Vatican II killed it.
Pope Benedict XVI's 'reform of the reform' that McBrien hates so much is a try at reviving it.
Robert Taft makes a good liturgical point on all three matters. Trying to bring the divine office (the hours as Orthodox say) back into the daily practice of most Roman Catholics is one valuable reform that either has spectacularly failed or never was tried.
Tacked-on epiklesis and token deacons notwithstanding it's obvious to the common man that the aftermath of Vatican II moved Roman practice far away from the East and more in line with Protestantism. Traditionalist the late Michael Davies nailed this: for all the talk about ecumenism it's 'a harsh and even offensive condemnation' of Eastern practice.
More than one Orthodox knows this.
Richard McBrien and NCR are typical old, liberal-Protestant-wannabe RCs angry that the kids like Pope Benedict and his restoration of tradition better than their worn-out junk.
I really suspect people of McBrien's kind don't like Communion from the Reserved Sacrament not for some purist liturgical reason (like Communion should be from the liturgical action happening right now) but because they think the Roman Catholic/Orthodox belief in the Real Presence is stupid and superstitious like the first Protestants did.
I wonder what insulting things he'd say about the Orthodox if you put a few drinks in him.
Note to McBrien and Taft: what Western Rite Orthodox do looks a lot more like Pope Benedict's revival than their junk.
That should tell you what the mind of the Orthodox Church is on this.