You will be waiting for a long, long time for an answer.

Instead, you will be told by the sedes why your question is........anything but deserving of an answer.

Byzcat, I too would like to understand Lad's position better, but he never goes deeper than what he wrote earlier.  I think the topic gets him riled up, so he tries to avoid it.
.
It's hard to have a honest discussion of these matters; too many are entrenched in their opinions already.  I'd love a honest critique/discussion of my views, by someone who is searching for the truth, not for the "kill shot" against the "other side".  PM me if you're interested.

There isn't any deeper to go, Pax.  You've said that the New Mass is blasphemous.  Everyone knows that the V2 and post-V2 Magisterium is better to be ignored.  V2 have corrupted doctrine, public worship, canon law, general discipline.  It's about focusing on the big picture.

Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?

Many heretics in the past have been condemned for saying that exact thing, and the universal dogmatic theological consensus has always been that this is impossible due to the notes of the Church, the Holiness of the Church in particular.

This Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  Most Traditional Catholics know this, and this is why no one has any qualms about separating from this entity.

So it's back to the question of how a Catholic Church and a non-Catholic Conciliar Church can co-exist as the same entity.  You made a metaphor with a parasite.  But a parasite is not one with the body but an external invader.  To say otherwise would be analogous to the abortionist claim that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother's body.

Catholic Church and Conciliar Church cannot co-exist as the same substantial entity.  As I demonstrated from Aristotelean-Thomistic philosophy, the only way this is possible would be by applying a material-formal distinction ... such as the sedeprivationists do and what Fr. Chazal does at least implicitly.

You're arguing from the limits of strict infallibility but then falsely extrapolating that to what is tantamount to a defection of the Church.  We're not talking about a sentence or two or a paragraph in some papal encyclical that might be problematic.  We're talking about a NEW RELIGION ... with its new public worship, its new saints, its new doctrine, and its new law and discipline.  This goes FAR BEYOND the discussion regarding whether a particular statement meets the notes of infallibility.

In other words, your argument from fallibility simply doesn't scale to the point of a defection of the Church.

Do you believe the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous?  If so, define blasphemous and show how it meets the definition.

For a start, the тαℓмυdic offertory.
The Novus Ordo’s Offertory was lifted from the same “Torah” that blasphemes the Holy Family:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/roman-mass4.htm

Do you believe the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous?  If so, define blasphemous and show how it meets the definition.

For a start, the тαℓмυdic offertory.
The Novus Ordo’s Offertory was lifted from the same “Torah” that blasphemes the Holy Family:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/roman-mass4.htm

тαℓмυd - Mas. Berachoth 33a

MISHNAH. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL9 IS MENTIONED IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE RESURRECTION, AND THE PETITION10 FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS, AND HABDALAH11 IN ‘THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’.12 R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING13 BY ITSELF; R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS SAID IN THE THANKSGIVING BENEDICTION.14

GEMARA. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL etc. What is the reason? —

R. Joseph said: Because it is put on a level with the resurrection of the dead, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of the resurrection.

THE PETITION FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because [the petition] refers to sustenance, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of sustenance.

HABDALAH IN THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because it is a kind of wisdom,15 it was inserted in the benediction of wisdom. The Rabbis, however, say: Because the reference is to a weekday, therefore it was inserted in the weekday blessing. R. Ammi said: Great is knowledge, since it was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings. R. Ammi also said: Great is knowledge since it was placed between two names,16 as it says, For a God of knowledge is the Lord.17 And if one has not knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy on him, as it says, For it is a people of no understanding, therefore He that made them will have no compassion upon them.18 R. Eleazar said: Great is the Sanctuary, since it has been placed between two names, as it says, Thou hast made, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord.19 R. Eleazar also said: Whenever there is in a man knowledge, it is as if the Sanctuary had been built in his days; for knowledge is set between two names, and the Sanctuary is set between two names.

R. Aha Karhina'ah demurred to this. According to this, he said, great is vengeance since it has been set between two names, as it says, God of vengeance, O Lord;20 He replied: That is so; that is to say, it is great in its proper sphere; and this accords with what ‘Ulla said: Why two vengeances here?21 One for good and one for ill. For good, as it is written, He shined forth from Mount Paran;22 for ill, as it is written, God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth.20 R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING, etc. R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Johanan: Let us see: It was the Men of the Great ѕуηαgσgυє23 who instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs.24 Let us see where they inserted them! — He replied: At first they inserted it [the habdalah] in the Tefillah: when they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]; when they became poor again they again inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must say it [again] over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The Men of the Great ѕуηαgσgυє instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs. At first they inserted the habdalah in the Tefillah. When they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]. When they became poor again, they inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who says habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: One who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. Said Raba: We can bring an objection against this ruling [from the following]: If a man forgot and did not mention the miracle of the rain in the resurrection blessing, or petition for rain in the blessing of the years, he is made to repeat the Tefillah. If, however, he forgot habdalah in ‘that graciously grantest knowledge’, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it over the cup [of wine]!25 Do not read, because he can say it over the cup [of wine], but read, because he says it over the cup [of wine].

It has also been stated: R. Benjamin b. Jephet said: R. Jose asked R. Johanan in Sidon — some report, R. Simeon b. Jacob from Tyre asked R. Johanan: But I have heard that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah says it over the cup [of wine]; or is it not so? He replied to him: He must say it over the cup [of wine].

The question was raised: If one has said habdalah over the cup [of wine], need he say it [again] in the Tefillah? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: We learn the answer a fortiori from the case of Tefillah. The essential place of the habdalah is in the Tefillah, and yet it was laid down that one who has said it in the Tefillah must say it also over the cup [of wine]. Does it not then stand to reason that if he has said it over the cup [of wine], which is not its essential place, he must say it [again] in the Tefillah? R. Aha Arika26 recited in the presence of R. Hinena: He who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head! This statement contains a contradiction. It says that he who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], which would show that to say it in Tefillah alone is sufficient, and again it teaches, ‘and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head’, but since he has said it in one he is quit, the second is a blessing which is not necessary, and Raba, or as some say Resh Lakish, or again as some say, both Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, have said: Whoever says a blessing which is not necessary transgresses the command of ‘thou shalt not take [God's name in vain]’!27 Rather read thus: If he has said habdalah in one and not in the other, blessings shall rest upon his head.

R. Hisda inquired of R. Shesheth: If he forgot in both,28 what is he to do? — He replied: If one forgot in both, he says the whole again.29