Liberalism, namely in the assertion of universal human rights, such as the right to not be restrained from publicly manifesting one's beliefs and conscience. This so-called universal human right derives from the intrinsic dignity of the human person, according to the Second Vatican Council. There is a way in which that last phrase could be given an orthodox interpretation, though it is very dangerous; Pius XII, unfortunately, used it several times, besides using liberal language a few other times. The belief in an intrinsic, universal right that is possessed by all humans to manifest their opinions, so long as their conscience is their guide, cannot be interpreted in a non-heretical manner, however. It is plainly contrary to the teaching of the Church both in its explicit magisterial expression as well as the sense in which it was understood by the faithful prior to the Latrocinium, as evidenced by historical practices and mentalities on this question (namely, every Catholic King was lauded by the Holy See for executing notorious heretics and infidels who would not cease spreading their falsehoods or blasphemies publicly).
Some FSSP clerics have attempted to show continuity between the teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Council on the question of religious liberty. This is impossible. The Church teaches that the civil authorities have a positive duty to restrain those who would publicly manifest their heresies or false teachings and religions form doing so, and suppressing and punishing them accordingly; the Church allows, however, for the civil authorities to tolerate the public manifestation of false religions and heresies, however, if it is feared that some greater evil could be prevented by such toleration. This is a prudential judgment, however, and it is not the ideal. When such evils seem like they could probably be avoided, the civil authorities must perform their duty.
Vatican II and the FSSP clerics try to say that, since the Council allows suppression of certain false and/or heretical opinions in order to protect public order, there is continuity. This is illusory, though, since they say that the necessities of public order can give occasion to the allowance of suppression, whereas the Church teaches the exact opposite, that keeping public order gives occasion to the allowance of toleration. This is a perfect contradiction. The Catholic position upholds the salvation of souls and the honour of the Truth as the good; the Conciliarist position upholds the liberal principle of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression/speech deriving from a universal intrinsic right possessed by all men as the good. The Catholic teaching says that no man has the right (which is a privilege guaranteed by an authority) to spread error, but it might be tolerated in --
and only in -- cases of emergency; furthermore, this duty on the part of the civil authorities derives from the Divine Law and morality as such. The Conciliar teaching says that all men have this right inalienably and can be stopped only in order to protect public order. There is clearly an impassable chasm between the two teachings.
There, modern philosophy and heresy in the Robber Council. Exercise completed.
I could go on.
Here, read this :
http://bibliaytradicion.wordpress.com/tradicion/faith-imperiled-by-reason-benedict-xvis-hermeneutics/If you refuse to read this essay by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais that demonstrates the heresies of Josef Ratzinger.