So, you do NOT believe that the N.O. church is the embodiment of the practices/teachings of Modernism, but rather Subjectivism which has NOT yet been condemned as such (in explicit form as a heresy), and this is why you maintain that one can remain Catholic while still attached in some way to the N.O. structure?

... you've bumbled, fumble, and conflated about half a dozen things here and clearly have no comprehension of the last half dozen posts I've made.

At this point, I have no choice but to just leave you with this ...

... and the common opinion of the theologians is that public material heretics do NOT belong to the Church

No, no it's not.  You really have no clue what you're blabbering about, do you?

Even simpler: N. O. serves Satan!!  

That religion is based on a subjective need in man and not on objective Truth itself.

This characteristic permeates everything and everyone in the N.O. religion. It is why all the new rites are tinged or tainted with Anthropocentrism, why everything it teaches is always trying to speak to "Modern Man", why the free-masonic "brotherhood of man" is its central theme and constant watchword.

OK, so you attack me for characterizing the core error of Vatican II as being related to "subjectivism", an "uncondemned" error, as you put it, and then when asked about how Modernism can be found in Vatican II ... you come up with the same answer?

Modernism is actually more specific and concrete than just subjectivims.  Its primary impact on and nexus into Catholic theology had to do with the notion that dogma could change over time or be revised.  Now the "Catholic" Modernists held that it's not that the dogma has changed but that our "understanding of it" has changed, so in a SENSE it's related to subjectivism, but it's a reference to the CHURCH's understanding of dogma rather than any given individual's.

What we see at Vatican II takes it to the next level, where any individual (Catholic or otherwise) can please God, save his soul, etc. ... if they merely follow their own (even erroneous) consciences, that to whatever degree or extent they arrive at what the objective truth ultimately is good enough and true enough for that individual even if they don't arrive at the ultimate "fullness of truth" (the Omega point, as it were).

Now, there can be a legitimate notion of developing a "deeper understanding" of dogma, since our fininte intellects and even the Church's doctrinal statement can only approach but never completely arrive at the ultimate inscrutable unintelligible inarticulatable supernatural truths, and so there is a process there of being "in progress" or "tending towards", but the Modernists tried to exploit that to where they'd say "Pope is infallible." (according to our current understanding) could eventually lead to "Pope is not infallible." (according to some future deeper understanding), which is hogwash, as a future deeper understanding cannot undermine or contradict the previous definitions, but merely add further clarification or detail to them.

So that's what was going on during the post Vatican I Modernist movement, and much of it was in fact driven by the definition of papal infallity that many did NOT want to accept.  Even Cardinal Newman (I had an argument with Sean Johnson about it), who was not a fan of the definition (St. Anthony Mary Claret died as a result of that crowd Newman was aligned with, making comments about accepting the definition (tentatively or conditionally) based on some future "deeper understanding".

Now, the other area in which Modernism had infested the Church had to do with science and new "historical" Biblical criticism underming the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, where they had for their premises an unbelieve in the supernatural and even preternatural, so that Sacred Scripture was not primarily authored by the Holy Ghost, but, rather, the product of various circuмstances, and the backgrounds and preconditions of their human (secondary) authors ... as Catholics would regard them.  So they began dismantling Sacred Scripture, attributing error to it, distinguishing its intention to teach about spiritual matters vs. historical/scientific, etc., and we see this continued in the likes of Father Paul Robinson's "Realist Guide" (Modernist trash that it is).

So that's where Modernism as such found its way into the Church.  Subjectivism is actually much broader than this, and includes the philosophical trends that culminated ultimately in phenomenology.

But a combination of Rationalism (denial of the supernatural and preternatural) and Subjectivism (truth being truth for each individual per their own "experience" of it) were the one-two punch that they used to condition Catholics to accept the impending revolution.

But the actual revolution, while Subjectivism/Modernism conditoined Catholics to accept them, was done intentionally by infiltrators rather than somehow came to be on its own vis some "grass roots" development.

You were arguing that Benaz123 was "suspect of heresy" simply for saying he liked Orthodox theologians and Balthasaar. It is inconsistent to claim that some in the N.O. can be members of the true Church based on formal motive, while others like Benaz are "suspect of heresy" for simply believing and acting like the religion of the N.O. expects/allows.

You're really starting to just waste my time, or can't you read?  I've already mansplained to you the difference between a condemened heretical/schismatic sect like the Orthodox, and an individual's private-judgment determination that the Conciliar Church is also a heretical sect.  It's the same difference as when someone rejected papal infallibility before Vatican I and then after it.  Secondly, do you understand the difference of being a heretic and being "suspect" of heresy.  Yes, when someone promotes an Orthodox (non-)theologian as one of "his favorite", yes, that absolutely makes him suspect of heresy.  There's no proof that he adheres to any heretical proposition, but that statement makes it highly suspicious that he does.

But you ignore all these things, despite my having wasted considerable time explaining it to you, but just keep harping like some mindless OCD individual on the same two or three concepts that are stuck in your brain.  This has to be the fourth time now, "But ... but ... but you said he's suspect of heresy while saying that you're not necessarily a heretic if you're in the Conciliar Church."  Do you understand even the English definition of the word "suspect"?  In fact, even in Canon Law, had Benaz actually be caught attending Orthodox Liturgy, even there Canon Law indicates that he's merely "suspect" of heresy, since there COULD be some explanation for it (ignorance, etc. ... where maybe he thought it was the same as Eastern Rite Catholic, and I know some people who actually don't know the difference).