CathInfo.com

?  It's a theory only because I don't know if it's ever happened.  But does a priest have such a power, as Neil said, "...walk into a grocery store and consecrate the entire wine section making all the wine, in the bottles, become the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord, Jesus. Or, I could walk into a bakery and with a few words and the precise intention, change all the bread on all the shelves in all their plastic bags, into the Body of Jesus. In either case it would be a serious sin, but it is within the power of any priest to do this."

Any REAL priest has this power, no question about it.  If you have an openness to the truth, this is all the facts you need to show that the Eucharist is not the mass.  This is theology 101.

You can keep hiding behind the "the Church says its a mass" mantra, (but the Church has never officially said, without a doubt, that it is one...a book or interview or papal address is NOT official teaching), but you're wrong.  How can you say you hate Modernists, yet you trust the officials in rome (which you incorrectly refer to as "the church") who are these same modernists?

I don't trust officials in Rome.  I trust the Church--whether or not a bunch of Her prelates are evil.  We argue the same things, but from critically different positions.  We both think it is impossible for the Church to be mistaken.  From there we differ.  You think that when the Church adopted another liturgy, since She can't be mistaken, then those who foisted the liturgy on Her and all who follow it, were broken off and lost.  But that would be an error on Her part greater than permitting an extended liturgy. It is absolutely impossible for any being on earth to foist another liturgy on the Church where 95% of Her priests are tricked into doing it by Her authority ...or if that actually happened, then the Church failed and erred when She permitted a greater percentage of Catholics to be tricked under the authority they trusted.   

You seem to think the Church is made up only of the educated, only the most revolutionary and determined, who read with canon lawyer-like accuracy to agree with your position.  As if you were never in error?  Rather, the Church is made up of sinners, weak minded, confused and in some cases wicked people on the verge of despair in need of a mother who doesn't lie to them.  If the NO is a false religion that hijacked the Church's name, position, political aspect, prelates and laity, then the Church failed.  If the NO was permitted (at first only in its purest form), yet quickly used to corrupt and spread modernism,  we would have the same results we do now.  With this understanding, only the evil doers within the Church would be guilty, rather than the Church Herself.           

Your argument makes no sense.  Is the NO perfect?  
Can the Church give us an imperfect liturgy?
If it is perfect, why do I not have to attend/accept it?
If it’s imperfect, does one not have a MORAL DUTY to attend one that is perfect (ie True Mass)?
If they don’t have a duty to attend the most perfect mass, why not?
If the laity are educated on why the NO is imperfect, THEN do they have a duty to leave it?
Or are the laity allowed to childishly hide behind the “I didn’t do it” excuse forever?
Why does it matter who created the NO, when the effects (ie Protestant theology) are wrong?
Do the effects not matter?  

No liturgy is absolutely perfect, as it has changed and developed over the years prior to VII
We attend the liturgy because it is the crucifixion of Christ in an unbloody manner, which gives praise to God and spiritual food to man.
The Church vouches for the efficacy of the Mass, as it does not stand alone without Her. 
Everyone has the duty to attend a good Mass, not profaned by novelties, yet culpability can be low for those unknowing (at first)
Those who are educated should seek the best Mass possible because they are judged on their knowing.  
The laity are not allowed to childishly hide behind anything, but to come to a more perfect union with God.  
It matters who created the NO because if the Church provided a Mass for the ignorant like the king in scripture who called in the dregs of society because His own wouldn't come, who are we to deny Him that?
The effects do matter.  I attended the NO for years, raised a huge family, who also raised Catholic kids and all love Mary, Jesus in the Eucharist, etc.  Not to say we didn't benefit far greater from the TLM but the grace needed for that wasn't provided early on.  Or, we didn't respond to the grace.  I consider the NO a low income housing for the very poor (in spirit), designed to keep them fed until they get on their feet.  <----It seems.  I admit, I'm only guessing, but I can't see that the Church failed so miserably, but that in being generous to men, God permitted them to do only what was technically possible within the Church.  True, they took it further than permitted to the loss of Faith of many, promoting all manner of novelties.  Perhaps the difference between the two liturgies opened the eyes of many who might otherwise not bothered to know more.  I don't know.  I just can't blame the Church.   

Thia is how the modernists talked and why they changed the mass.  That is, their false reason.  The mass came from Christ, so if the TLM was imperfect, then I guess Christ is imperfect?

The Novus Ordo is SUBSTANTIALLY different than the TLM, a fact which you continue to ignore.  

Questions:

Do you deny that Card Ottaviani and Bacci studied the “perfect” Novus Ordo and said it was doubtful in its validity?  Yes/no?

How do you know that the NO mass you used to go to was the one approved by Rome?  

How can you be sure that the freemasonic bishops/priests didn’t “experiment” with it, as is done at 95% of them?  

Answer: you don’t know.  Therefore you can’t go, because the doubts are too great and it’s a sin to act in doubt when it comes to the mass.  

I didn't mean that there was anything wrong with the TLM Mass, just that by nature it is changeable to some degree.  I do not ignore TLM is substantially different than the NO.  I do not deny that CO and B studied the NO and deemed it doubtful.  I think they did a great critique.  I agree with it mostly.  However, Popes since say the NO is valid and licit.  What do I do with that?  Ignore the Popes?  Declare CO and B Pope?  Declare post conciliar Popes non-Popes?  Call all recent Popes heretics and call it a day?  If Popes and bishops and priests failed us in doing and saying the NO then the Church failed us.  And that's not possible.  Rather, what was permitted was licit, (perhaps even good) and is not the Church's fault for spreading error that sprang from it, but bishops and priests who capitalized on it used new freedom to twist and turn what was permitted into what was not.  I've never said the NO was a good idea (from my humble perspective) just that it could not have been intrinsically evil.  If it really is intrinsically evil, the Church failed in an epic way and the gates of hell prevailed against 95% of it while insisting it was authoritative.  That's a pretty serious offense the Church is guilty of.  Rather, I suspect the Church did not fail, nor the Popes per se, but that liberal mindedness already in play, took the leap out of the Church by heretical acts and provisions.  Several Popes lamented and discouraged some of the anomalies and atrocities, although, by then, the laity and priests were awash in the "new church of because I can."  It was the people's fault, the bishops, even the Popes, but officially not the Church's.
The parish I attended the NO was as traditional as they come.  The pastor died a couple months ago kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament where he worshiped daily from 3:00 am to 6:00 am.  
I have not been to a NO in 10 years and have no need to attend one, nor desire to attend one.  You can keep trying to find liberalism in me but you won't.  I believe in testing the spirit as Scripture tells us and I'm not afraid to admit that the traditional movement is shattered as badly as any sect in the world.  I don't think it is their traditional philosophy at fault, but the message to work on self, rather than point fingers at others, is not being taught or received.  The movement has become overly political, and in many ways lost its charity in favor of its own agenda.  Consider Kentucky, the hardline sedes, and even some of the R&R's so willing to condemn others.  Ideas, philosophies, they should condemn, but not peoples.  They should take better care not to ignore the authority of the Church or further divide it.  If they do, get out and go with the sedes.  Pretty simple really.