Pope Paul VI signed that and Pope Paul VI said he likes the book and he adds three Eucharistic prayers to the already existing Canon of the Mass.

So Paul VI never said that I have to use the new Missal, it was the congregation who said so, but the congregation cannot decide something behind the back of the pope even if the pope afterwards silently agrees.

Fr. Gregorius Hesse  — Padre Hesse #04 - Os Problemas da Missa Nova

This suggests a lack of the full weight of infallible papal authority typically associated with such a significant liturgical change, perhaps an instance where the Holy Spirit did not permit an irrevocable binding of the Church to a new rite.

The definition of mass given by the way in the Roman Missal of 1969 and 1970 […] is the following: „The mass or the Supper of Our Lord is when people come together and unite under Christ to give praise and Thanksgiving to him.‟

Now that’s the definition of the Roman missile. Where’s the sacrifice for the forgiving of sins? Where’s the propitiatory sacrifice? Where’s the Real Presence?

Fr. Gregorius Hesse  — Padre Hesse #04 - Os Problemas da Missa Nova

This shift in emphasis, away from the propitiatory sacrifice, introduces a grave doubt regarding the correct intention required for a valid consecration.

I say that the Novus Ordo of Mass published by Pope Paul VI […] is not the Latin Roman rite, but is a schismatic rite. […] If it’s not the Latin Roman rite, but a schismatic rite, you cannot apply Pope Pius XII’s decree, Sacramentum Ordinis, to examine its validity. You will have to examine the validity of the Novus Ordo rite the same way the church has always examined the validity of schismatic rites. […] The last one to go into a thorough examination of schismatic rites was Pope Leo XIII in […] 1894 in his decree, Apostolicae Curae, in which he decides that Anglican orders are not valid.

Fr. Gregorius Hesse  — The_Problems_of_the_Novus_Ordo_Sacraments.srt

This perspective demands an evaluation based on principles used for rites outside the continuous tradition of the Roman Rite.

The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

1. In relation to the power to offer Mass:

[Old Rite:] “Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.”

[New Rite]: changes this, omitting „and the dead‟ and altering the direct conferral of power.

2. In relation to the power to hear confession:

[Old Rite:] The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord imself: “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:22)

[New Rite:] Abolished completely.

SSPXAsia  — Priestly Ordination: The New Rite Vs. The Old Rite

Similarly, the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is plagued by ambiguities. For example, regarding the form:

In the New Rite’s prayer of consecration for a bishop, it does not mention the power of orders. In fact, it doesn’t mention the priesthood at all!

[…]

Nothing in this part mentions or asks for the full power of the priesthood or the grace of the Holy Ghost as Pope Pius XII declares as absolutely necessary.

Comparison of Old and New Episcopal Consecration Rites, p. 25

While individual ordinations might be valid if performed by a validly consecrated bishop with correct intention and the new book, the rite itself is deficient.

When eternal salvation is at stake, there cannot be a shred of doubt about the validity of the sacraments and their ministers.

We cannot and must not approach doubtful sacraments.

(referencing Blessed Innocent XI’s condemnation of probabilism in sacramental practice, Denzinger-Schönmetzer 2101)

This principle alone is a strong reason to abstain from the Novus Ordo.

In the Roman Missal, in De Defectibus, it says so. […]

„If the celebrant was to be distracted or interrupted at the words of consecration, and if these shortened or changed words of consecration contain a change of significance, and if the celebrant does not repeat the words of consecration fully and correctly, the sacrament does not take place.‟

Now to change „for the many‟ to „for all,‟ as you can easily see, is a change in significance.

Fr. Gregorius Hesse  — The_Problems_of_the_Novus_Ordo_Sacraments.srt

If the rite itself does not clearly signify what the Church does, its Catholicity is questionable.

heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it.

But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

St. Thomas Aquinas  — Summa Theologica, TP, Q82, A9

While St. Thomas allows for receiving from a sinful priest not yet sentenced by the Church, the argument for traditional Catholics is that many Novus Ordo clergy, by their adherence to Vatican II’s novelties, effectively align themselves with a departure from Catholic Tradition, making their ministry spiritually unsafe.

Moreover, the sacraments in the NO are highly doubtful (if the priests themselves do not believe in the Eucharist, they naturally cannot confect it - because they do not have the intention of the Church at all).

I do not go to the NO (there is no obligation to go to a Mass where one deliberately puts oneself in spiritual danger, unfortunately, most people do not know this and think they are obliged to listen to complete rubbish on Sundays).

The goal of Mass on Sunday is not a „duty‟ without meaning, but the goal is to receive the sanctifying grace of God by doing His will.

A liturgy that is objectively displeasing to God, due to its departures from Tradition and its doctrinal ambiguities, cannot be the primary means of fulfilling this obligation if a traditional Mass is accessible.

Additionally, in NO churches, crumbs of Jesus are lying around everywhere (Communion in the hand) and I would accidentally step on Jesus if I went there. Heaven, no.

This manifest disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament is a grave scandal and a danger to souls.

Now, how about such a statement as, „Believers and non-believers unanimously agree that all the efforts of mankind are directed towards man as its center and summit.‟ - That’s blasphemy.

Gaudium et Spes Number 12.

Fr. Gregorius Hesse  — The_Problems_of_the_Novus_Ordo_Sacraments.srt

When man, rather than God, becomes the focus of the Church’s liturgy and theology, such deviations are inevitable.

The obligation to keep Sunday holy is best fulfilled by seeking out the Traditional Latin Mass from a priest that is not putting you in spiritual danger and uncompromisingly preaches about the full Catholic Faith – see this map, as this undoubtedly offers true worship and sanctifying grace.

If this is unavailable, it is far more pleasing to God to sanctify the Sunday by praying the Mass yourself (except for the sentences that a layman cannot say), see the /missa folder for a nicely-formatted list of Mass prayers for every Sunday of the year, or divinumofficium.com for an online Missal with original texts (click „Sancta Missa‟ to get the proper texts for every day).

While it might seem contradictory to get grace by staying away from the Blessed Sacrament: participating in a rite that is riddled with scandal and heresy and is a danger to faith is not Catholic, nor can the Church obligate one to (see What obedience do we owe the Pope?).

It is not the goal of the editorial team to prevent anyone from getting grace: the opposite! However, Catholics have to be aware that not every „sacrifice‟ nowadays is pleasing to God.

Editorial note: I have found it difficult myself to adjust to this, as you, I wanted to „be a good Catholic, go to Mass‟. However, being around priests who are silent or compromising resulted in me sliding into laxity. After all, I was going throught the motions. Once I stopped doing that and started to seek out priests, who were cancelled and supressed for their opinions – only then I started to actually severely grow in my Faith. It is hard, even for me, to tell you this, as I obviously get a lot of pushback, I’d love to have more friends at Mass, etc. I am human too. But I cannot overlook the elephant in the room and feign a „Unity of the Church‟ with people who are heretical (nevermind that my local NO is mostly attended by liberal 60+ year olds).