But was this *original* more conservative NO that you describe, itself sacriligous and offensive to God? I don't know. I imagine most people here would say yes, but I'm not sure myself.
I do believe so, and I'll explain in a second, but had it been disguised in Traditional trappings, with Latin, Gregorian chant, kneeling for Communion, etc. ... one might be fooled. I've watched a couple such on EWTN, where the NO was said in Latin, accompanied by chant, the women wore veils, everyone received on the tongue kneeling, etc. ... and it LOOKED Catholic and reverent.
But the context and the theological orientation surrounding it makes it offensive to God. First, there was a tremendous hubris behind thinking you could just sit down and write up a Mass, when the Mass is considered to be of Immemorial Tradition from the Church Fathers and the Apostles, guided in its development by the Holy Spirit. Conconcting a New Mass is just a step or two removed from deciding you could write and add a new book to Sacred Scripture. Then we ask WHY they wanted to do this? They invited the Protestant ministers to consult, since the intent was to make it less "offensive" to Protestants, and thereby less Catholic. In the Missale which described the Mass theologically, there was a decided shift from the notion of "sacrifice" to "memorial supper of the Lord". There was a decided change in the definition of the Mass toward being a gathering of the people (what of the priest offering the Mass alone?). Finally, the alternative Canons have absolutely no root in Tradition, except for the claim that one does, and that one is actually suspect of being an Arian canon.
Sure, by itself, simplifying the Kyrie eleison - Christe eleison from 9 to 3 is not offensive to God, but the entire context and motive behind the NOM, and the theology surrounding it, this makes it unacceptable as a Catholic Mass and therefore offensive to God.
But had they kept the Latin and chant in place for a while, they would have fooled most and there's likely never to have been a serious Traditional movement, but then at the same time it would not have achieved its intended effect of quickly eroding faith in the Real Presence and in the Holy Sacrifice.
It's as if God, in allowing this crisis, deemed that the enemies of the Church should be allowed to do this but that they should be forced to do it so that it is exposed as the work of the enemy to those who still have the faith.