Talk:Second Vatican Council

message: This is either incorrect or unclearly written. AFAIK Vat II brought forward that the Catholic Church is not the ONLY way to salvation; salvation can be found also in other churches but the RCC has the fullness of faith. The way it's written, it looks like "it's RCC or you're gone, period". --90.236.11.180 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect about what Vatican II taught. The Church has always held that there is no salvation outside the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the notion of the Catholic Church alone brings through ultimate salvation to mankind" 

message: Much of this article is very unclear, and thus hard to understand. For instance "These groups, composed mostly of members of the Roman Curia, produced 987 proposed constituting sessions, making it the largest gathering in any council in church history. (This compares to Vatican I, where 737 attended, mostly from Europe.)" There were "987 proposed sessions" but it compares to "737 attended"? 188.141.10.11 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence no longer appears in the article. The comment about this sentence will be removed from the talk page in one month if no one objects to this response. MDJH (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

text: This sentence no longer appears in the article. The comment about this sentence will be removed from the talk page in one month if no one objects to this response. MDJH (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: English speaker needed

message: although it took a will, that's the jewish response to the Second Vatican Council, and need to be add to this article.--Setareh1990 (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable secondary source that says this, other than your insertion in that article today? Elizium23 (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dabru Emet]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Second Vatican Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130922015955/http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/2002d/100402/100402d.htm to http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/2002d/100402/100402d.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Background," it states that "John XXIII often said that it was time to 'open the windows [of the Church] and let in some fresh air.'" However, the source provided does not indicate that it was "often said." The source neither claimed to be quoting John XXIII. It's hard for me to track down the quote. However, this NCR article may work for now. (https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-ii-its-about-fresh-air)
Birthdayfan (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly-Cited John XXIII Quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Second Vatican Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610203034/https://www.aei.org/basicPages/20031124161414312 to http://www.aei.org/basicPages/20031124161414312
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905114740/https://conciliaria.com/ to http://www.conciliaria.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Second Vatican Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170419004349/http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/404/article/anniversary-thoughts to http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/404/article/anniversary-thoughts
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719064228/http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02206.htm to http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02206.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Try as I might, I couldn't find a translation of De sacramentorum disciplina. Disciplina may mean discipline; however it may also mean teaching, knowledge, or way/custom. It seems this commission's not as well-documented as some others. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing one English translation of commission name

message: "Pope John XXIII opened the Council on 11 October 1962 in ????????????? and read the declaration Gaudet Mater Ecclesia before the Council Fathers."
I can't see where the public sessions took place.
Please add vital information.94.222.16.98 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sentence of the lede says the Council took place in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The section on the opening of the Council says the opening session (and the Pope's address) took place in St. Peter's. MDJH (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  where? 

message: Can someone explain me why this sentence needs citation?
"In the 1950s, theological and biblical studies in the Catholic Church had begun to sway away from the Neo-Scholasticism and biblical literalism which a reaction to Catholic modernism had enforced since the First Vatican Council."
I know it is a big claim. But it is fair to raise personal opinion or interpretation no matter how big or small the claim is right? I mean how wikipedia work better than google answers? if we just repeat what other people say.
I don't understand why he has to justify his statement? Maybe it is generally considered that because there should be a discussion on this in the literature, that some prestigious or known schoolar most be quoted here? and indeed this is not generally accept knowledge. In that case I will suggest you say the nota says: "quotation on discussions needed" or something alike, just making it more specific. 
Please don't be pretentious and try to elaborate, if you want to answer me. In general I believe there is no perfect encyclopedia. I mean, enclopedist like we editors of wikipedia, always leave something from their own in their work. And as I said, I hope one day wikipedia can be more like the stanford encyclopedia in speculative and deductive matters. Although this might be contradictory to the realm of public access and internet, since concepts are becoming more and more quantified, and we cannot just put them free accessible because people will try to quantify (making intelligible units of knowledge) on them. That is not really the aim of deductive sciences nowdays. Anyways, this seems will contradict the motto of wikipedia.  
For years I have been asking myself if someone can write philosophy online and free accessible, but it seems just not of this era. Btw. Stanford encyclopedia is not really what I mean here, it is usefull for scholary purposes, but not for big claims! 
Kind regards, and thanks in advanced for your thoughts and answers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemazcorro (talk • contribs) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: A number of controversies about Vatican II are discussed in the sections on "Objections to the Council" and "Legacy". I propose moving the discussion of these controversies to a new section called "Controversies". I can see 4 subjects in that section: (1) the validity of Vatican II; (2) the theological authority of Vatican II; (3) the interpretation of Vatican II's texts (example "hermeneutic of rupture" vs "hermeneutic of continuity"); (4) the "spirit of Vatican II". I will wait a month to see if anyone reacts to this proposal. If nothing significant happens in that time, I will go ahead with the change. MDJH (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: The profound legacy - the failure to fulfil the promise of modernisation - initiated the wholesale abandonment of the church by the 'faithful' in the West, in both observance and belief. It's the elephant in the room here. The elephant demands and deserves attention. It should receive it, if only by way of a link to a new topic; the collapse of Roman Catholic belief in the West. Since Vatican II an overwhelming majority of western Roman Catholics have adopted the mores and live - for all practical purposes - as protestants do; with little to no involvement with the institution of their religion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source discussing this topic, feel free to add what it says. Veverve (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociological Legacy Needs Elaboration 

message: This article on the Second Vatican Council contains a well-researched section on "Vatican II and the pontificate of Pope Francis". At least half of it is taken verbatim from the Wikipedia article on the Theology of Pope Francis (presumably by the same author). I suggest an account of the connection between Vatican II and Pope Francis belongs in the article on his theology rather than the one on Vatican II. A sentence in the article on Vatican II could refer the reader to the article on his theology, thus avoiding the redundancy we currently have. MDJH (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican II and the pontificate of Pope Francis 

message: I noticed the rewrite of "Ecumenism" is all cited to a single source. It would be better to use a multitude of sources while not, for example, implying something no single source is explicit about. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The current rewrite of the sub-section on Ecumenism is a considerable improvement on the previous version, which consisted in a single sentence without any citation. That's good enough for now. Anyone who wants to find other sources is welcome to do so. MDJH (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-source rewrite of "Ecumenism" 

message: * the ref "Rynne 1991, p. 439." leads to nowhere. Do you know what this reference is supposed to refer to? 
* The following ref has no date to identify it (the author has two books): Alberigo, "IV, The External Climate", The History of Vatican II, vol. 1, p. 404 
Veverve (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seems to know what this "Rynne 1991, p. 439." ref refers to, I removed it. Veverve (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Rynne 1991, p. 439. + Alberigo 

message: The redirect 2nd vatican has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2nd vatican]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Second Vatican has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Veverve (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Second Vatican]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The first paragraph under the "Background" section has no sources, and makes dubious and broad brush claims. It seems therefore to be outside of NPOV, and probably best for somebody to edit or delete. I will refrain from doing so because I am a Wikipedia editing noob. CustodianOfClara (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact the first three paragraphs of this section have no citation and contain dubious or false claims. CustodianOfClara (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential NPOV violation in introduction