Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum

Yes, it's just sometimes misinterpreted.

Anyone claiming it's not valid is a dumb sedevacantist, and as such is a heretic.

>>2362808
It's a valid, pastoral council. No pronouncements of the Magisterium were made.

>>2364709
>Yes, it's just sometimes misinterpreted.

Sometimes can be an understatement depending on where you live. I think the problem lies more with the cultural shit that was going on in the 60s than with Vatican II. The important thing is to actually read the "controversial" documents instead of getting information from a batshit sedevacantist site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90uKf6tr9AA

>>2362808
No, and neither is Vatican I, Trent, Constance, Florence or any of the other anti-Christian councils of Romanism

>>2362808
Valid? Yes. Awful? Also yes.

>>2365112
Why?

>Claim you have a figure and organization that speaks for the whole Church
>Disregard them every time they say something you don't like

The controversy around Vatican II, summed up.

Aren't you basically "protestants" though? lmao

>>2366003
Includes a number of very questionable and rather poorly argued aesthetic changes. As well as binning some beloved traditions. Sort of like the "CURRENT YEAR!" of its day.