Paul VI's heretical status is irrelevant.

Ok, I'll take that as your answer.  So, heretic Paul VI took over the Church and taught major error in matters of faith and morals replacing nearly all Masses with fake ones, but the Church and Pope are still infallible? 
If Paul VI was an heretic and destroyed the Mass as you say, was he infallible when he did this?  

I know my olive tree analogy was pretty lame, but I thought it was clear that my contention is that the liturgy that Paul VI approved was NOT the liturgy that was put into place by 95% of the freemasonic bishops.  So, no, Paul VI did not "replace nearly all masses with fake ones".  The freemasonic bishops did and since the bishops don't have authority to do so, they aren't protected by the Holy Ghost from error.

Secondly, I've never said that the NO was fake.  I said it was extremely doubtful.  In many cases, it is a fake, but we don't know when, where or by whom, because it is dependent upon the priest's personal intention...which no one (except God and him) know.  There is no way to know, by external measures, if a NO is valid.  Therefore, you must act as if it's doubtful, because the doubt is too great.
The question doesn't even make any sense.  A pope's heretical status is dependent upon his PERSONAL beliefs, while his actions of authority are EXTERNAL acts.  They don't have to be connected.  A heretical pope could proclaim somone as canonized, even if he didn't believe it, because his authority as pope, if he uses such authority, is protected from error by the Holy Ghost (in certain circuмstances).

Further, one could make the argument that Paul VI's constitution which created the NO was not an infallible act, because he did not bind any of the faithful to accept, use or attend his new mass.  If something is optional, then how can it be infallible?  Infallible means "without error"; how can something optional be "without error"?  Makes no sense.

I largely agree with the first part.  The only thing I complained about is that people say the NO is absolutely evil, or not a Mass.  We don't know that.  The next question I posed makes great sense, because if Paul VI and later JPII and Benedict XVI did the NO, put bishops in authority to ordain priests to do the NO, then the NO comes from the top. These Popes reigned, doing what the Church does, that is, the NO, during their reign, proving the NO was covered by the authority of the Church.  This never covers for sacrileges done by priests or bishops of course. The NO can't possibly be intrinsically evil, or even doubtful, in and of itself, or Church authority erred by doing the NO.  And that is not possible. 

Yes, it can be, and absolutely is, doubtful.  If you disagree, then you're saying Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci are idiots.

What about all the V2 theologians who admit that the NO's theology is different from Trent?  Does that not matter?

You keep missing the point that the NO liturgy said in the dioceses IS NOT what Paul VI approved.  Does that make Paul VI guilty, for his silence and lack of action to correct the evil liturgy which was being said everywhere?  Absolutely.  Does that mean the Church "failed"?  Not at all.

There have been numerous clerics who complained, from day 1, that the NO was wrong and was not in accordance with "the spirit of Vatican 2".  Lots of people knew that liberties were being taken with the new missal, and such liberties were sacriligeous and, in many cases, invalided it.  But "officially" the Church did not authorize these liberties, so they don't come from the Church, but from bad bishops and priests.  The pope is obviously guilty of not clearing out these evil clerics (and that's a grave, grave sin), and he's guilty of not stopping their sacrileges, but he didn't OFFICIALLY authorize this false liturgy, so it is not "from the Church".  ...at least, that's one way to look at it.

If you're saying the NO is intrinsically evil, you're saying the Pope either isn't infallible, or the Church erred in saying he is.  

I don't think you know what 'intrinsically' means.  I keep saying 'doubtful'; you keep saying 'intrinsically'.  2 totally different things.

Secondly, do you understand what I mean when I say that Paul VI approved of liturgy A, but no one uses liturgy A, but an "abuse filled" liturgy B?  It doesn't sound like you do.

I know exactly what intrinsically means.  You continue to doubt, that's up to you.  
Yes, I know Paul VI approved of liturgy A as you put it, but nobody uses liturgy A.  Then that means that subsequent Popes who did the NO liturgy B were heretics, in error and not infallible.  

Pax, these are statements you've made:

Just because it's *possible* that a eucharistic miracle happened, doesn't mean God approves of the novus ordo.  Remember, the novus ordo is not a mass, but at best, a eucharistic ceremony.

The novus ordo's purpose is NOT FOR GOD, it is to destroy the idea of sacrifice and replace it with the "sacrifice" of the eucharist, which is protestantism.

The NO is NOT essentially or superficially perfect because no one has ever SEEN a perfect NO.  It’s a unicorn; a fantasy; a fable told by Freemasons

The NO that Pope Paul VI approved never made it to 95% of the dioceses and still hasn't, 50 years later.  This means that the NO in 95% of parishes, in the entire latin world, for the last 50 years, is NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH.

We can't make excuses for those in the NO; on the contrary, we must tell them THE NO IS WRONG AND SINFUL, so that they will refuse the false mass and accept the True one.

I agree that the "theoretical" NO which Paul VI made was "technically" ok, but as Card Ottaviani pointed out, it could very well NOT be ok, due to a whole list of problems and land mines.  But the mass that Card Ottaviani studied was NOT the one that was given to the laity by the freemasonic/communistic Bishops and priests.  The one rolled out on the red carpet to the people was a corruption of a corruption.  Paul VI's "pure" NO was a corruption of the True Mass and the protestant version (which most see) is a corruption of that.  Just like the 3rd sickly, GMO tree was a corruption of an already corrupted hybrid tree.  

Paul VI's heretical status is irrelevant.

The question doesn't even make any sense.  A pope's heretical status is dependent upon his PERSONAL beliefs, while his actions of authority are EXTERNAL acts.  They don't have to be connected.  A heretical pope could proclaim somone as canonized, even if he didn't believe it, because his authority as pope, if he uses such authority, is protected from error by the Holy Ghost (in certain circuмstances).

Further, one could make the argument that Paul VI's constitution which created the NO was not an infallible act, because he did not bind any of the faithful to accept, use or attend his new mass.  If something is optional, then how can it be infallible?  Infallible means "without error"; how can something optional be "without error"?  Makes no sense.

You keep missing the point that the NO liturgy said in the dioceses IS NOT what Paul VI approved.  Does that make Paul VI guilty, for his silence and lack of action to correct the evil liturgy which was being said everywhere?  Absolutely.  Does that mean the Church "failed"?  Not at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get a sense you don't know what you believe.  You suggest the NO is intrinsically evil while saying it is only doubtful.  You said it destroys the Faith. Isn't that intrinsically evil?  You insist no one should not attend NO because Cardinals said it was doubtful, suggesting you follow Cardinals rather than Popes. You call it a communion service not a Mass. That's not doubtful, that's an impostor and intrinsically evil. You suggest that somehow, even though Popes have done the NO for years, they remain infallible, yet they in erred in matters of faith and are not infallible for doing/promoting the NO since it is doubtful and destroys the Faith. Even if you didn't trust a particular Pope, there are several since Paul VI who continued to do the NO after that.  And now you say that there are two NOs as if the Popes along the way didn't actually do the one you say isn't even a Mass.  Subsequent Popes not only approved the NO they practiced, they participated and promoted it and defended it.  The buck has to stop somewhere--are all those Popes still infallible? You even suggest in the last of the statements above that Paul VI was guilty of silence and lack of action... as though he had not actually erred.  That's a cheap shot.  Paul VI wanted the NO, promoted it, watched it launch, and left it to legacy.  If the NO practiced in most of the Church since Paul VI (whom you called a heretic) is not Mass, then the subsequent Popes since and including Paul VI are all heretics for allowing an even worse Mass to take over.  That would make them all destroyers of the Faith, outside the Church for heresy, practicing false liturgies and way fallible.  Now, either the last several Popes erred in an epic way proving they were not infallible, (which means the Church isn't the true Church).  Or, none were Popes which makes those who believe they weren't popes, sedes.  Or...the NO is enough of a Mass to bring the Blessed Sacrament to men.

If the epic failure of the post conciliar Popes and error of the Church to stop a fake communion services masquerading as a mass for > than 50 years doesn't affect the promise of infallibility, then nothing could and the promise of it is meaningless.  

It simply isn't possible for a Pope to introduce a Mass that isn't really a Mass into the Church, then leave it as a legacy of some sort, where subsequent Popes continued that legacy, but that doesn't affect infallibility.  Not possible.      

If JPII didn't use the approved liturgy, but instead, the doubtful liturgy B, that doesn't mean he's a heretic, or not infallible.  It just means he used a doubtfully valid mass, and would've committed a sin for doing so.  He could've used liturgy A in private...we don't know.  It has nothing to do with infallibility because no pope has said that liturgy B is approved.

Oh dear.  So, Mass being a matter of faith, and the Pope contradicts that Faith by doing a false or doubtfully valid Mass, and promotes others to do that Mass, and passes that Mass along without condemning it, then infallibility is shot.  What you propose denies the credibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope.      

What you propose denies the credibility of the Church and the infallibility of the Pope. 

Does the pope speak from the Chair of St Peter when he says mass?  Is he teaching dogmatically during mass?  Of course not.  You need to read up on what infallibility is.