One of the constant criticisms from traditionalist Catholics of Vatican II’s document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (henceforth, DH), is that it contradicts previous Church teachings on that topic and so undermines the doctrine of the social kingship of Christ. Furthermore, it is alleged that when this “novel” teaching is paired with the Council’s robust affirmation of the importance of ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, you end up with an overall theological ethos of religious relativism and indifferentism.
The FSSPX represents an extreme case of this dissent from DH. But it is also a central complaint from many otherwise observant and faithful Catholics who self-identify as members of one of the varieties of “traditionalism”. And to make the point that they are not dissenting from anything dogmatic, they frequently point out that the Council as a whole was a pastoral one and did not issue any new dogmas.
Therefore, they argue, since DH is not an infallible text, it can be rejected as contrary to previous teachings and will hopefully be repudiated by a future pope or council. This seems, for example, to be the view of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who prefers to call such teachings “ambiguous” rather than “heretical,” although he makes it quite clear that he thinks DH teaches error on the matter of religious freedom.
Read more on CWR