CathInfo.com

You were correct the first time when you said: "Evil liturgy doesn't come from the Catholic Church."

The pope might be many different things to many different people, but what he is not, is the Church.

So you mean to say that the main liturgy used by the clergy of Catholic Church, and the only one allowed in the Latin Rite for lengthy periods of time(Latin mass was barred except under very specific circuмstances for YEARS), is not the Church's liturgy? The liturgy celebrated by the Pope and the only liturgy which may be performed by every priest without restrictions and special circuмstances, is not the Church's liturgy?
What exactly is the definition of the Church's liturgy then? How is the Novus Ordo rite NOT the Church's liturgy? 

The only licit, 100% certainly valid and 100% pure liturgy is the 1962 rite/missal, which is the descendant from Pope St Pius V's Quo Primum.  It is the only rite which is REQUIRED under pain of sin, and which is legally certain to be approved by the papacy.

The novus ordo liturgy is illicit, most probably invalid, and immoral (to varying degrees, both in form and circuмstances).  It is also not required for salvation, hence it is not the rite of the latin church.  Quo Primum's rite is still the rite.

The pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ to ALL Catholics.  And whatever liturgy he promulgates is the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

You are still confused 2V. Trent's teaching is certainly true, so why do you believe that the conciliar church's liturgy is the Catholic Church's liturgy? Trent is most assuredly not referring to the conciliar liturgy, a liturgy it surely would have condemned. Not sure how that is not obvious to you.

Because the pope promulgated the conciliar church's liturgy, you wrongfully declare that liturgy to be Catholic - but you making that claim, thankfully does not make it so. Seems like the fact that the pope promulgated a liturgy for the conciliar church should be obvious by now, I mean, you left the NO what, 8 or 10 years ago now?

The reason this crisis has gotten to this point is because people believed the lies they were taught, the lie that whatever the pope said/taught/wanted was infallible and infallibly safe, that whatever the pope in union with all the bishops of the world teach, is infallible, that all councils are by default, infallible, and each of these lies require our absolute obedience, submission of faith and allegiance or we'd go to hell.

Even sede's adhere to these lies with veracious claws for the sake of denouncing the pope - quite iniquitous really.

Now the crazy thing is, if they would just use the reason that God gave them, then they would realize that if those were not lies, if those lies were in fact "dogmas of faith" as Cantarella and lad and the rest of the sedes say that they believe but really don't, then we would ALL be bound to the conciliar church and it's liturgy. The reason we are not bound is because they are evil - not because a pope cannot promulgate an evil liturgy or there is no pope.

But rather than see through the lies, they fall right into them and instead of realizing they were fooled into believing lies, they cling to the lies as if they are dogma in order to come up with wild conspiracy theories and ideas about the pope not being the pope, there are no cardinals or bishops - save the one or two hiding in the jungle somewhere, and they imagine that the "magisterium" which cannot defect has in fact defected but they know that is impossible.

As I said, the whole sede scene is really quite iniquitous.