CathInfo.com

Everything that was de fide before Vatican II is de fide today, and nothing has been proposed as de fide since Vatican II that was not already de fide before the Council.  What that means is that the faith taught by the Church has not changed. 

You reduce the Church's indefectibility to simply maintaining some of the core "de fide" dogmas.  As I said, your assertion is hogwash, since the Vatican II sect deny EENS dogma ... openly and consistently.

But it's absurd to reduce the Church to the 1% of its teaching that is strictly de fide, as the Church consists not only of de fide teaching, but exercises a Magisterium well outside of that, offers Public Worship to God, and regulates the moral lives of the faithful and their cult of the saints.  This Conciliar abomination has replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with a Protestant abomination that Luther would reject.  It has replaced the Offertory of the Mass with a blasphemous prayer from the тαℓмυd, redefined the Mass, and stripped out most references to the Holy Sacrifices.  It has flooded the Conciliar "altars" with a parade of dubious (if not absurd and scandalous "saints").  To claim that this the Conciliar Church is still the Catholic Church because it hasn't OFFICIALLY repudiated any de fide dogmas is utterly absurd ... even though, as I said, it has in fact done so, clearly and consistently rejecting the thrice-defined dogma that there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church ... by redefining Church.

Catholic Encyclopedia on the Indefectibility of the Church:

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals ...

It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. 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.

“The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and this visible Church is the Church to which his promises pertain; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible, and that in her and by her men would find sanctity and salvation.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1, 3^rd ed. 1927, ) 

This is laughable, since this is precisely the core thing that Vatican II rejects.  But, aside from that, you again try to reduce visibility to some guy walking around Rome in a white cassock.  Besides that, where to we find "sanctity" in this Conciliar Church?

That's only one aspect of visibility, with profession of the truth faith, communion in the same Sacraments, etc. all being aspects of visibility.

With your reduction of visibility to the material hierarchy ... to the exclusion of these other aspects ... the Church would defect during any given interregnum, and much more during a lengthy interregnum.  We've had Antipopes usurp the Holy See before, have had the Great Western schism, where Catholic were in doubt about where this "visible" Church was, have had nearly the entire episcopate go Arian, during which crisis St. Athanasius made his famous statement about the visible Church being potentially reduced to a handful of faithful.  As I pointed out before, the ad absurdum of your principles would have had the True Church becoming Arian and would have put the orthodox bishops, priest, and faithful OUTSIDE the Catholic Church had the Arians succeeded in getting one of their own on the See of Peter.

What if bishops like St. Athanasius and others who went around consecrating parallel Catholic bishops for the sees that had been usurped by Arians?  Were they schismatics also?  What of St. Vincent Ferrer, who adhered to an Antipope?  There have been many Antipopes, some of whom were accepted as Popes for some time in Church history.  Where the material Church resided has been in doubt numerous times in Church history, and so it is again today.