Why were/are there so many objections to the Second Vatican council?

[Timi_Celcer]

Statements will be taken from wikipedia: “One of the more controversial documents[citation needed] was Nostra Aetate, which stated that the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians.”

I couldn’t believe this. How can that be controversial of curse all jews are not to be blamed for Christ’s death. Did the Church ever taught that all the jews including the ones to come are guilty of Jesus’s death? Why didn’t the Church clarify that all the jews aren’t guilty so there wouldn’t be so many deaths of jews?

“The first business of the fourth period was the consideration of the decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, one of the more controversial of the conciliar documents.”

Again how could that be controversial and why didn’t the Church clarify that sooner so apostates wouldn’t be killed?

 

[TRH1292]

Question: Why were/are there so many objections to the Second Vatican council?

Answer: Because people often prefer there own authority to the authority of the Church.

 

[bben15]

Question: Why were/are there so many objections to the Second Vatican council?

Answer: Because people often prefer there own authority to the authority of the Church.

Ding Ding Ding. We Have a Winner.

:extrahappy::clapping::newidea: :dancing: :yeah_me: :bowdown2:

 

[thequietsinger]

Question: Why were/are there so many objections to the Second Vatican council?

Answer: Because people often prefer there own authority to the authority of the Church.

I can’t agree with you more.

 

[TRH1292]

:tiphat:

 

[TRH1292]

Statements will be taken from wikipedia: “One of the more controversial documents[citation needed] was Nostra Aetate, which stated that the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians.”

I couldn’t believe this. How can that be controversial of curse all jews are not to be blamed for Christ’s death. Did the Church ever taught that all the jews including the ones to come are guilty of Jesus’s death? Why didn’t the Church clarify that all the jews aren’t guilty so there wouldn’t be so many deaths of jews?

“The first business of the fourth period was the consideration of the decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, one of the more controversial of the conciliar documents.”

Again how could that be controversial and why didn’t the Church clarify that sooner so apostates wouldn’t be killed?

Beyond the title question there, I am not sure I understand the rest of the questions. Are you asking why the teachings of the Second Vatican Council were not taught before the The Second Vatican Council?

 

[landon13]

I’m not going to say anything…I’m going to sit here a good boy praying in Latin before I have to explode contra Vatican II.

 

[landon13]

You know, lets just say it brought about grave modernizations in the church contra tradition…and leave it at that

Blessings!

 

[Polycarp1]

The same reason that there were objections to every Church Council.

 

[TRH1292]

The same reason that there were objections to every Church Council.

Practically every council in Church history has resulted in a group of people arising and claiming that this latest Church Council is different from all the rest, and that Rome and the whole Church has finally defected from the true faith.

 

[janman55]

and… people are too lazy to read the documents of what actually happened.

 

[EphelDuath]

Statements will be taken from wikipedia: “One of the more controversial documents[citation needed] was Nostra Aetate, which stated that the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians.”

I couldn’t believe this. How can that be controversial of curse all jews are not to be blamed for Christ’s death. Did the Church ever taught that all the jews including the ones to come are guilty of Jesus’s death? Why didn’t the Church clarify that all the jews aren’t guilty so there wouldn’t be so many deaths of jews?

The Church has never taught that all Jews are to be blamed for the death of Christ. The ultimate cause of Christ’s sacrifice is the sinful nature of humanity, and so all sinners share blame in His death, nobody excepted.

Murder, of course, is a sin, so indiscriminately killing Jews has never been viewed favorably by the Church. That’s why the Nazi Party’s biggest opposition within Germany itself was the Catholic Church.

“The first business of the fourth period was the consideration of the decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, one of the more controversial of the conciliar documents.”

Again how could that be controversial and why didn’t the Church clarify that sooner so apostates wouldn’t be killed?

I don’t believe the Church has ever ordered somebody’s death just for being an apostate.

Now, I do believe that this document is problematic for many reasons. A superficial reading of it gives the impression that the Church no longer believes in the social kingship of Christ – this is actually the effect that was intended by the people who proposed the document to begin with. Only by a very careful reading of the document can we see that the Church, like before, does not teach (a) religious indifferentism, or (b) separation of church and state.

That being said, it’s really only possible to conclude that if ante facto you have already accepted that the Church is infallible and cannot revoke past teachings. It’s very easy to read the document and simply assume that the Church is teaching liberalism, which is false and a heresy.