CathInfo.com

Yes. You do know Rome in Her Official Catechism today still (1) teaches all Trinitarian dogmas (2) all Incarnation dogmas (3) all Eucharistic dogmas and (4) all Marian dogmas, right, in a word (5) all Catholic dogmas? I'm assuming you don't disagree with those. :)

Except Pope St. John Paul - whose life Our Lady of Fatima saved on May 13, 1983 when Communists and Islamists wanted to αssαssιnαtҽ him - was responsible for the downfall of Communism in the Soviet Union. If you can't see that as a good thing, that's sad.

Not at all. Archbishop Lefebvre was fine with an "as-is" canonical normalization with Rome many times, as I'll show in the next post. You need to follow +abl more closely on this point.

You are an Indult Catholic? Why do you think you have an Indult Mass to even be able to refer to yourself as such?

We have an Indult Mass, thanks to ABL and also because Indult Catholic Priests show the True Trad way of preserving BOTH (1) Catholic Tradition and (2) Catholic unity with Rome. You can learn from them about this point.

Just because the infiltrators at the council did not attempt to change major Dogmas, it doesn't mean that they did not essentially change vital elements of faith and morals, as well as adopting heterodox philosophical foundations which emphasized subjectivity and the exaltation of man, to the detriment of the rights of God. 
In order to display to the world the new religion that they created, they had to concoct a new liturgy to show outwardly what they presented to us to believe inwardly.
I recommend for your reading the book, "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber," and you'll see the shocking dismissal of orthodox (lower case o) theologians, such as Abp. Lefebvre, and Cardinal Ottaviani, and the embrace of "progressive" theologians such as Hans Kung, de Lubac, De Chardin, among many.
Also, please utilize these two links..
The first is a good presentation and breakdown of the chief errors of the council docuмents from Catholic Apologetics, and the YouTube link will canonically disprove the fallacy of rupture due to the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. 

www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vaterror.html

https://youtu.be/LKPREkFs7Tg?si=w1vTX1EhSTMhTaou

  A Resistance priest is now researching the validity of N.O. Baptism. This is a "smaller " problem if we are of the opinion that N.O. priests don't know, or understand, or minister as true priests, all this the product of doubtful ordinations <consecrations. How can they intend to do what the Church (Trad. ) does if they don't / can't profess  our eternal truths? the effects of any one sacrament? Signs, matter, form, intention. For  baptisms, they receive the newly baptized in the community, people of God concept. Well, that is not Baptism -

  Did Our Lady get baptized on Pentecost, when the Church was born? She and the bishops got the Baptism of fire, is that how it happened?  But St. Peter made his powerful sermon, 3000 were baptized, ... were they immersed in water?  Strange questions. Is there a strong reference to Our Lady's baptism?...she had no original sin; and filled with the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation.

Another priest is still wondering why Our Lady even received the tongue of fire, was this a redundant sacrament?
I can't find that detail in the New Testament, however some have noticed it. Please, Where?
Thanks.