...
But now comes a religious leader who pronounced in public earlier this month : “Many people have an understanding of the Council, which is a wrong understanding.” Religious liberty, he said, “is used in so many ways. And looking closer, I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council says about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that is a very, very limited one: very limited!” Asked whether Vatican II itself, i.e. as a whole, belongs to Catholic Tradition, he replied, “I would hope so”....

Can anybody be surprised if “his movement” is currently going through the gravest crisis of its 42 years of existence ?

...

This is open heresy and positioning everyone for a return to Apostate Rome.

God bless Bishop Williamson.

Bravo! :applause:

Thank you.   God Bless you, Seraphim.

Dignitatis Humanae can rightly be called an "American" docuмent since it was pushed and nurtured by the Jesuit, Fr. John Courtney Murray. I am currently reading a book, Conflict and Consensus: Religious Freedom and the Second Vatican Council by Fr. Richard Regan (who worked from the notes of Fr. Murray). Mind you, the author is a liberal but he states so far that the Papacy after the French Revolution reacted incorrectly to the idea of religious freedom because of the radical nature of the French Revolution and failed to see in the American Revolution the key to understanding the modern world. Until....Pope John XXIII and then the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae which enshrined democratic values within the Church. The era of "Catholic States" (e.g. constitutions which enshrined Catholic principles and the Social Kingship of Christ) was over and the fundamental right of each man to religious liberty due to his inherent dignity became the norm.

The author of the book is stating that Papal teachings before Vatican II (primarily the 19th century teaching) was historically conditioned and hence could be changed.

With that said, here is a choice quote from p. 9 concerning the "Americanness" of the docuмent:  

The primacy which American bishops accorded a conciliar statement on religious freedom amused many Europeans, who, who understanding the nineteenth-century papal polemic against Jacobin democracy and sectarian liberalism, attached less importance to such a statement. As already indicated, however, the reasons for concern were real enough. American Catholics, who identified themselves with their country's authorship of the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, had experienced a more bitter questioning of the Church's relation to religious freedom by non-Catholics than had Catholics elsewhere. It is also note-worthy that the main opposition to the Declaration on Religious Freedom came from the bishops of a nation committed to the paternal organization of society, showing that the basic issue posed by the Declaration on Religious  was not simply religious freedom but freedom simply.

There was another speech given in Rome last week on pretty much the same topic,
by Brian McCall, J.D., on Tuesday, May 15th, 2012.  

See for yourselves the presentation, given in English and accessible at this link:

 “Separation of Church and State: an Error of Russia.”

Select the tab for Tuesday and this speech is under 10:15 am to 11:15 am.

(I wonder if Bishop Williamson may have been influenced by McCall's speech?)

Dignitatis Humanae can rightly be called an "American" docuмent since it was pushed and nurtured by the Jesuit, Fr. John Courtney Murray...

There are some who say that Fr. Murray was the actual author of DH.

The era of "Catholic States" (e.g. constitutions which enshrined Catholic principles and the Social Kingship of Christ) was over and the fundamental right of each man to religious liberty due to his inherent dignity became the norm.

Brian McCall spends considerable time in his talk on this principle of Catholic States and the enemies of God who attack it. The talk is a LOT longer than H.E.'s Dinoscopus installment.

Correction:

The author of the book is stating that Papal teachings before Vatican II (primarily the 19th century teaching) were historically conditioned and hence could be changed.

Here are a few clips that teach the opposite, that papal teachings which condemn errors have no time limit. It was actually the principle error of the age of Vatican II, beginning with the Opening Speech of John XXIII, that was the beginning of this BIG LIE that prior teachings could change, because it is the condemnation of error, per se, that makes a doctrine infallible, protected by the Holy Ghost, and binding on all the faithful from that time and forever into the future. At the opening speech of Vatican II, John XXIII abandoned the practice of condemning error, and it has not be resumed since, this (October 11th) being the SEMICENTENNIAL of that enormous and unforgivable blunder.

Readers should keep in mind that any proposition regarding faith or morals once condemned by a Pope is binding on all human beings for all time forward, even for non-Catholics. It is their responsibility to learn and know these things and to have no part with these errors.

Condemned propositions from the Syllabus of Errors, Blessed Pope Pius IX:

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8th, 1907
(Excerpts from a Papal encyclical)

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful...

...So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecuмenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers...

26. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates. And first, with regard to faith...

...Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.


LAMENTABILI SANE

Pope St. Pius X July 3, 1907
(Condemned propositions)

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.  

Of course the subjectivist response to that is to say those who violate the First Commandment don't know they're violating it.  

That's what you'll hear on Catholic Answers.

And if you bring up the Golden Calf, they'll say Aaron and Dathan went beyond the "due limits."

The impudence is breathtaking.