His article:

http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/search/label/Apocalypse%20and%20Vatican%20II

Reads just like a lurid CHick Tract or Baptist Fundie site, placing hte Body of Christ as the Whore,etc....despite the teachings of the Fathers that the Whore is the NWO and International тαℓмυdism.Rome taht is Babylon was a code name for ANCIENT ROME.also, teh city named is the city that killed hte Lord, hence Jerusalem (Christ did not die in Rome)

A refute of this well written, but theologically inept and bankrupt Prot article:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/second_coming.html

http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p4.asp

(note, Chick and CM much alike)

http://www.catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=2&category=0&event=56&date=2006-01-06

http://www.audiosancto.org/categories/end-times.php

http://www.fisheaters.com/endtimes.html

http://www.fisheaters.com/jc1.html

after you get a chance to end readings and the many MP3 talks, you will see that CM does not know a thing about his subject matter, then again, no penance, Eucharist,etc=No Grace....so, not surprising....CM=Prot Wolf in Catholic clothing....he takes his narrowed, Gnostic views and bends them until he claims they fit Fathers, Church,etc.....

He's on to bubkes.

St. Paul himself says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God.  What do you think the temple of God is?

VII in Dignitatis Humanae trumpets the exact same religious liberty that the infamous Americanist known as Cardinal Gibbons trumpeted, claiming it as a necessity for the whole world to embrace.  For more on this, see trad123's thread about the infallibility of Vatican II ( it has gone off topic ).

"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

"Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

"The next speaker was Cardinal Ottaviani. He said that the declaration stated a principle which had always been recognized, namely, that no one could be forced in religious matters. But the text was guilty of exaggeration in stating that "he is worthy of honor" who obeys his own conscience. It would be better to say that such a person was deserving of tolerance or of respect and charity. "The principle that each individual has the right to follow his own conscience must suppose that that conscience is not contrary to the divine law, he asserted. There was missing in the text "an explicit and solemn affirmation of the first and genuine right to religious freedom, which objectively belongs to those who are members of the true revealed religion." Their right was at once an objective and a subjective right, he said, while for those in error there was only a subjective right."

The Cardinal said that it was "a very serious matter" to assert that every kind of religion had the freedom to propagate itself. That would "clearly result in harm for those nations where the Catholic religion is the one generally adhered to by the people." He also said that an Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church could not ignore the fact "that the rights of the true religion are based, not only on merely natural rights, but also, and to a much greater degree, on the rights which flow from revelation."

The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 164

I failed to say the Rosary today.  Yet another black mark.

SJB, are you trying to favorably contrast Pius XII with Dignitatis Humanae?  I'm aware that there are many orthodox passages in his writings.  That is why I call him two-faced and double-minded, as I know you've noticed.  Remember that "Pius X stuff" about the Modernist mixing the part of the rationalist and Catholic, so that at one moment he is orthodox and the next he is insinuating error?  Please absorb it and take it to heart rather than constantly chafing at me.

The passage you cite is indeed orthodox, even beautiful, as some of his passages are when taken out of context.  No doubt Pius XII was of rare intelligence, which he used for evil.

Pius XII said:

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

The question is, what does Pius XII consider to be the truth and the norm of morality?  His entire pontificate wove a web of approbation around the goals, then in the process of reaching full implementation, of the Jєωs and Masons.  Occasionally he'd say something about how tyrants and exploiters are bad without describing who the tyrants and exploiters were.  He used obfuscation.

Pius XII said:

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

That is almost written in the sense of Leo XIII's Libertas, as the Church must adapt to changing times and circuмstances.  I'm not sure about the phrase "higher and more general good," though.  The Church tolerates separation of Church and state so that its members can live and work in America, for instance.  It is a "good" that they can worship instead of being oppressed.  But this is not a "higher" good.  It's a lower good.  

Freedom of religion is a lower good than the temporal control of the Church over the state, but a higher one than outright oppression.

Pius XII also said:

"62. The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.

"

Do you think this is a Catholic "international arrangement" he's calling for, SJB?  Do you think it's orthodox to call for a non-Catholic body to "smother" any resistance, such as, oh I dunno, a CATHOLIC resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?  Pius XII's encyclicals are a mere welter of confusion, of yin and yang, of opposed principles, a sort of verbal white noise, a Rohrschach blot just like the encyclicals of his VII inheritors.

I guess not NFP, but the same old "Whose your Pope" discussion..

Raoul does this in other posts, he will throw out something and then wonder when oppositions mounts...though he seems to be doing better with his remarks, in that he does not make an inane statement or calumny without some research...

perhaps you are making headway SJB....

I agree what you say, the antichurch and antipope...but Rome is not the whore, nor the pope THE antichrist...thse are Prot accusations......scripture notes that there are many antichrists, but also, only one Man of Sin.yet prots claim the Popes are Man of Sin, yet they ascribe the title to many men....as does Cm in some threads.......yet, this contradicts 2000 yrs of Catholic teaching, prophecies,etc.......