Do the Lutherans and Anglicans still say the Creed? Do they really believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? Do they honor Our Lady? How many Anglican and Lutheran churches pray the Rosary? I don't think that they do, but maybe you know better than I do in that regard. 

You believe that there isn't any difference between Prot Sunday services and the new mass. I disagree.

The point is, is that there are still enough Catholic elements in the conciliar church to conclude that the Catholic Church has not defected.

Not flack, just a point of information: The Blue Army Shrine in New Jersey is a fully NOM setup. From May to October, they have HUGE events on the 13th of each month with guest bishops and other high-profile clergy officiating. It's not a scene that ever interested me, it's just something that turned up on old internet search. They used to have one TLM low mass weekly on Thursdays at noon, but that disappeared from their calendar, I know neither when nor why.

The NOM crowd is totally into Fatima, as they also are into lots of other devotions both popular and more obscure, especially at the larger and more ethnically attended parishes. Yet they rank the DM Faustina stuff on par with Fatima. The liberal bishops don't mind because it keeps this contingent loyal and showing up for novenas, etc., otherwise some of them would go over to the Pentecostals instead.

While a rosary event and Fatima are obviously good, it's a pious exercise - crippled by the Mercy devotion - and has little to do with the mother-of-all-issues, the destruction of Catholic Dogma.  Catholic Doctrine has been absolutely obliterated by the Novus Ordo Missae.  With it's New Theology, New Priesthood, New Sacraments, New Vestments, New Modernist Heresy Spew, letting the few believers left say a crippled rosary is just what the apostates want - they recognize it hardly poses any threat.

That's called heresy.
Not 100% catholic = heresy.
If the V2 church has to "return to Tradition" that means it's heretical.

See, the SV's don't generally like to talk about the specific heresy of Modernism.

It seems that you are incorrect, as I find +Williamson using the same principle way back in 1996 (and basing it on +Lefebvre himself):

”Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfils one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?
A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible.

When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfil their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”
(Bishop Williamson, Letters of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, December 1, 1996)”

1) Can you explain how +Williamson’s Mahopac advice to the ignorant conciliar woman was any different than the application of Lefebvre’s principle above?

2) Can you explain how Lefebvre can say one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by committing -as you claim- an intrinsically evil moral act? 

Clearly, the Williamson of 2015-2023 is the same as that of 1996 (and the same as Lefebvre).

PS: I’ll let you flounder with #2 for a couple hours, before explaining and resolving your confusion, since this seems to be your foundational error.