CathInfo.com

He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

V2 definitely tried to setup a false doctrinal standard, but even so, this new "pastoral approach to doctrine" wasn't obligatory and has been debated ever since the council ended.  There are so many interpretations that there is no one, single standard.
.
However, even as corrupt as V2 was, it did not affect morals directly.  So, I would say that it did not setup a corrupt moral standard, but morals were corrupted gradually from without (i.e. hollywood, pagan society) and had been since before V2.

That's not what the question was about. Given that DH affirms a duty to follow the true religion, does DH say there's a right to worship idols?

Yes, DH affirms that there is a natural right to follow whichever religion one sees fit. And the state has to ensure that this natural right is guaranteed. Consequently, the conciliar sect went to threaten several Catholic countries to change their constitutions, and they did (e.g. M. Lefebvre reports about this, as can be found in at least one of his books).

It is true that DH also teaches that if you happen to have been so dim-witted to once adhere to the religion of the conciliar sect, you mustn't leave it. But all others don't enjoy this privilege. And it's a contradiction within one and the same decree,

And again, the point of this discussion is not DH itself, but SVism.

Again? Well, so far, I just answer your questions and input, and I commented on DH only once. Not my fault to talk about DH.

We come across what appears to be a contradiction in church docuмents (or Scripture). The Church fathers do often write or say things that can appear rather different than 20th century Catholicism, so this is not an exclusively V2 issue. What is a Catholic reaction? Perhaps wondering if context might be different? Perhaps humbly considering our understanding might be wrong? Perhaps it is a legitimate development of doctrine? Perhaps even suspending judgment? Yes, these seem like options for a Catholic. But being so certain that our understanding of an apparent dilemma is correct and the hierarchy is wrong, to the point of declaring that hierarchy no longer exists? Does that really seem like a Catholic response?

All your suggestions should be considered. And yes, there's also the possibility, that we witness the great apostasy, as prophesied in 2 Thess 2. Each of us has to make up his mind and draw his conclusions.


No, no, no, stop! There's one very bad suggestion: "Perhaps even suspending judgment?"

That's grave sin! The principal rule of natural law is: Do what's good and omit what's bad. And to follow that rule, you have to judge. If you suspend judgment, the devil already got you. There is a webpage on the net, where a Thomist university professor of philosophy and theology declared that he, given the robber council, stops to thinking further. He did realize that the robber council teaches heresy. Without realizing this, he wouldn't have to stop thinking. He is just a coward, kneeling in front of Antichrist.