Did Lorgar ever actually back away from what he wrote in the Lectio Divinatus?
The LD forms the basis of the Temple of the Savior Emperor, which becomes the Imperial Cult. The core of current theology is the LD. The Imperial Cult rose to prominence in the face of the Imperial Truth - Fatidicus fought in the siege of the Imperial Palace, and he lived to be less than 200 (I think the canonical age is 120). By that time, the Cult dominated areas of earth and beyond.
There isn't enough time for a cult to develop without a solid, accurate, consistent theological foundation. What I mean is; there was a "theology" (the Imperial Truth - a rejection of supernaturalism) which was well-established. It lost ground in not only a few short generations, but also within living memory of those who espoused it. And it did so being based on the LD.
Lorgar's LD absolutely has to make theological sense. Whatever arguments it made (and it has to make them - a religion does not become dominant without making arguments) they are ones which many people found appealing over and above the Imperial Truth.
So my question would be; did Lorgar ever repudiate it? Did he have a point when he said "All that was wrong - it wasn't the truth"? Or did he always believe (and still believes) the Emperor is a god, but that there are other gods and it is better to worship one who acknowledges you?