Yes. I was simply answering one of your questions.

• The Church is experiencing one of the most terrible crises in its history, both in its intensity and in the extent of the errors spread at all levels of the hierarchy and the Catholic universe. This internal crisis began well before the Second Vatican Council; it goes back at least to the pontificate of Leo XIII and was strongly denounced by Saint Pius X under the name of modernism. It is experiencing a dazzling development on the occasion of the last Council which introduced a number of new principles and “pastoral” attitudes in order to open up to the world. The latter was able to diffuse its spirit in the favor of compliant texts which were matured. If today voices are heard to deplore a false reception of the Council, speaking of a para-council, a council of the media, we must note that the door open to these errors, called false interpretations, is found in the texts and the very atmosphere of the Council. If it is difficult to define exactly “the spirit of the Council,” it is in its name that the Church has been gravely wounded a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis …
• Faced with this terrible reality, Archbishop Lefebvre reacted by taking the means that had to be used to get out of it. He was able to form priests, while rejecting the new orientations, faithful to all the truths and all that had been transmitted by our Mother the Holy Church;

• That’s what saved us! Moreover, it is this firmness which has allowed us to develop and manifest to the world and to the Church that attachment to Tradition is not a nostalgia for the past; but on the contrary a prodigious manifestation of the action of grace today;
• Obviously, this way of acting contrasts with the general spirit which reigns in the Church. The Roman sanctions as well as the will of the authorities to impose the postconciliar reforms, have forced us to live in a certain autarchy. This is the meaning of the operation survival of Tradition …
• Monseigneur Lefebvre, however, never wanted to separate himself from the Church. It is with great precaution that in the sermon of the sacraments and in other writings he manifested our attachment to the Church by refusing any schismatic spirit. Both his actions before the consecrations and his remarks afterwards show that for him there was no alternative: the pope remains the pope, the bishops of the bishops, with their prerogatives, even if they make mistakes , even heresies. That is why he always demanded that we appoint them to the Canon of the Mass.

Does it really live, and if so in what way?

Regardless, why linger in its orbit like moths to a flame?

If you can rightly wish it dead, then why consider it any more relevant than any other false system?

If you don't wish to be tricked then how wise is it to do the bidding of the magician, most of all by paying him unmerited and imprudent attentions?

Why so much focus, so much emphasis on that which not only has no salvific value, but quite the opposite?

Do we render justice to the True, Beautiful, and Good in minding so much that which is otherwise?

Is this not at least possibly a form of idolatry, witting or otherwise?

DZ, with all due - as you would say - I finally realized the liberal, peacenik approach you are advocating here.  

You may not be old enough as are some of us who lived in and remember the Church before the Council, but there would be no traditional movement/resistance to this awful Council and its results, if it wasn't for those who responded in indignation and reaction against the sacrileges and heresies that came to the Catholic world in the wake of Vat. II.  There are some of us on this board who were among the original student and child guinea pigs of "the Changes."

You appear to be saying just ignore the thing.  

Pius X disagrees with you.  He said the modernists should "be beaten with fists."  He said those who oppose modernism will be called "traditionalists."  He bemoaned the lethargy of Catholics who do not resist evil.

Our confirmation graces require that we stay away from sin, esp. sacrilege - and charity requires we warn others about the dangers of the modern Vat. II Church. But what is more - if anyone can see or realize to any extent, the goodness of God in His Mass, in His Blessed Eucharist, to not only feed us with Himself but to actually remain on our altars, and then not rise in horror when the devil's legions flooded the sanctuaries and men's souls with the "spread of Communism's errors" -- this overtly satanic attack on the Church -- well what kind of "Catholic" is such a person?  WE ARE THE CHURCH MILITANT.  Our Lord cried out to St. Margaret Mary about the coldness of the men of the 1600's - and He wanted reaction to it, He wanted reparation, He wanted LOVE.

How much more now!?!?  

With Christian love I say to you, DZ, to quit your cutesy, cryptic, edgy, hard-to-understand-and-a-pain-to-"try"-to-read-so-frequent-contributions around here (not to mention how funny it is that you of all people correct other people's grammatical errors since no one knows what you yourself are even saying half the time!) and spend more time reading or thinking about or praying concerning this deluge of atrocity we are under and the insults Almighty God is enduring - not to mention how few Masses He is receiving now to expiate this multitude of daily crimes.    

With what you wrote above, you don't seem to have the Faith.  You are lacking a Catholic spirit.  It seems you actually don't understand what the NEW ORDER is as pertaining to its attack on the Church and what it means and is.  Catholics in the 60's with your approach are the ones who just laid down and let it happen.    
Death to the Novus Ordo.

So go an be cosy with your friend Pope Francis, and see how far it gets you!