V2 requires “religious consent” which is conditional.  It’s similar to your parents requiring you to obey a “negotiable bedtime”.  Ok, I agree that V2 was a council (or I agree to go to bed eventually), but I’m not required to agree to the docuмents as they are written.  What kind of “command” is that?  Practically speaking, it’s not a command.

As my late father used to always say... Ambiguous laws (commands) are NEVER binding.

I believe he was correct. 

Sorry, Byzcat, none of the errors in V2 are obliged to be accepted.  "Religious submission" is a novel term and is conditional submission, on the assumption that V2 agrees with Tradition.  If it doesn't agree with Tradition, then we're allowed to question it.  If we're allowed to question it, then it's not obligatory. 

  All infallible statements/councils require "submission of mind and will" which is not conditional in any way.  V2 is not infallible because Vatican officials have said it only requires "religious submission", which is conditional. 

All I’m saying is that they tell us to accept it.

That's an inaccurate statement, if you fail to include the idea of "religious submission".  Accepting it 100% vs accepting it conditionally are LIGHT YEARS apart in meaning.  You need to include the full context of what "accept" means.

I grant that there's a bit of ambiguity in "religious submission."  "Religious submission" might allow for questioning whether certain things are worded in the best possible way, maybe allowing for minor errors.  

Religious submission = conditional assent.  Doctrinal submission = absolute assent.  The difference between 'conditional' and 'absolute' is huge.

There is *no way* they meant that you can go so far as to say the council is heretical, 

It doesn't matter what they meant, it matters what the law says.  "Religious submission" is itself a novel term.  That's why it's ambiguous...because it has no historical basis.  And neither does V2.  So new-rome is asking us to give (novel term) "submission" to a (novel council's) V2's (novel ideals) docuмents.  What a theological load of garbage.

and use that as a pretext to refuse to attend masses under the diocesan structure.  

V2 has nothing to do with the refusal to attend the new mass.  V2 only mentioned that the latin rite should be "updated" with with more "lay participation" and other general ideals.  V2 did not create the new mass.  You're mixing things up.

There is no way that they meant that you can say the NO is illicit and arguably invalid.

Again, V2 did not create the new mass, so even if one gave 100% "submission" to V2, the saying/attending of the new mass is a completely separate issue.  And whether one has to "agree" with the new mass is a completely separate obligation (assuming an obligation exists, which it doesn't).  I don't think you know what you're talking about.

To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't do those things, just that if you're going to do them you have to argue that disobedience is justified, either because the true hierarchy of Christ can badly screw up, or because they're imposters.  Saying you aren't *really* disobeying is a cop out.

New-rome has been consistent over 40+ years that V2 is not doctrinal and can be questioned.  It is not disobedience to act in the way that they repeatedly allow.  Just as they repeatedly say that the sspx is not disobedient for questioning V2.
.
Regarding the new mass, for the first 40 years, the BISHOPS told their dioceses that the old rite was "outlawed" and that everyone must attend the new mass.  The BISHOPS threatened disobedience on this issue, for sure.  But new-rome never did.  In fact, +JPII ordered a commission in the early 80s which said that the old rite was NOT "outlawed" and that Quo Primum was still law.  So, you see, new rome was in disagreement with the BISHOPS, who falsely interpreted Paul VI's law which created the new mass.
.
Then in 2007, +Benedict's "motu" said that the True Mass was never "outlawed" and it was "always permitted".  This confirms that those who rejected the new mass and continued with the True Mass all those years were correct.  There was no disobedience involved (and there still isn't).  The BISHOPS were the ones who were wrong and disobedient to the law of Quo Primum.  These are the facts.