You can go to www.fatherwathen.com and listen to sermons for free.  Many are on the new mass and V2.  These sermons are from the 70s - 1990s.

I appreciate the complexity of the problems but, for any error to exist, this error must be outlined. One cannot simply say: NO is bad. One should say that NO is bad, because of item (i), item (ii), item (iii), etc.

If the problems with the NO had been blatant and obvious, more people would have rejected it when first introduced.  They are subtle and twisty, rooted in ambiguity and confusion.  It is a characteristic of modernism that evil is introduced disguised as good.  You are not going to be able to make a straight-forward outline that you can just show to people.

" />

When I first started posting to trad forums, I was still attending the NO and I defended it.  People on forums told me about the problems and I could explain them all away.  The people you want to help will be able to do that too.

I had to spend years actually attending the traditional Mass before it had formed me enough that I could understand why the Novus Ordo could not replace it. The advice that Pax Vobis is giving you, long and difficult though it sounds, is actually a short cut.  A good-willed person who studies the right things may be able to figure things out faster than I did.  And perhaps, when you yourself deeply understand it, you will be able to tell others about it.

https://onepeterfive.com/the-novus-ordo-paradigm-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/
.
The above article is a good read, especially for those who grew up in the novus ordo and want to know why it is wrong.  It was written by someone who also grew up outside of Tradition, discovered the True Faith and now realizes how different they are.

Thank you. I appreciate your follow up as it is an important matter, to me.

If you want a reason to stop attending the novus ordo immediately, you can take what Cardinal Ottaviani said of it to heart.

It is not I who needs convicing...!

I need to expose the errors of NO to save the souls of those whom I love. The fact that these loved ones will not read books or accept my, personal, opinions is not a good enough reason to not try. I will not stop because they are not helping themselves.

If one can produce itemized and docuмented facts that conflict their our Faith, then one can hope to provoke thoughts and doubts that can lead to rexamine also the more subtle and dangerous errors that you mention.

I, personally, have stopped attending NO Mass because:
(i) it contains errors (*) that justify abandoning this rite even though I cannot determine which doctrine, canon, etc. they breach
(ii) it embodies the all what hurts in the government of our Church.

Both (i) and (ii) reasons are not specific and tangible enough for those whom I love to be convinced. I must identify and demonstrate which canon, which doctrine, which dogma, etc., these conducts violate.

I will add that, in relation to this article: https://onepeterfive.com/the-novus-ordo-paradigm-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/ , the problem is not the lack of convenient access to EF Mass (my mother travels one hour and 15 minutes, every Sunday, to attend to her favourite (modernist) sermon) as much as the lack of specificity of the canon, dogma, doctrine, etc., that NO violates.

1.  The novus ordo mass' theology is anti-Trent.
   a.  the Novus Ordo, "represents both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent".

What specific verse and paragraph of Council of Trent conflicts with what specific action in the NO Mass and what specific rubric in the NO missal.

The novus ordo mass' theology is anti-Trent.
  b.  For these and many other reasons, the Critical Study concludes that to abandon our liturgical tradition in favor of a liturgy "which teems with insinuations or manifests errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith is . . . an incalculable error."

"many other reasons": what other reasons?
"manifests errors": what errors?

2.  The novus ordo is a protestantized liturgy.
  a.   "On many points," the study says, "it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant."

This is not, per se, an error. There are other, orthodox Catholic dogmas that protestants too, believe.

"The instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart ...as though it were some sort of relic."

What canon, doctrine or dogma ratifies trhat the Sacrament cannot be kept in a place apart?

"The people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers." "He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister."

Appearances, per se, are not against canon, dogma, etc., etc..

3.  The novus ordo's consecration is "positively doubtful".
a.  29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum) - or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula - the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid.

This is an itemized, demonstrable error. What docuмent specifies that transubstatiation can only occur "ex vi verborum" or "modus significandi"?

b.  Canon Law forbids catholics from attending doubtful masses and sacraments, under penalty of grave sin, so to attend the  novus ordo's doubtful consecration is wrong.

What canon?


Aain, Pax Vobis, I appreciate your time as this matter is of great importance to me. Thank you.


(*) Eucharist on the hand, lay ministers dressed up as priests giving the sacred body of Christ, girls running around the altar, women reading the epistoles, Eucharist to my divorced uncle, Eucharist to protestants... and I could go on.

  Pope Pius VI condemned the idea that the vernacular should be used in the liturgy. See paragraph 66 of Auctorem Fidei. 

“66. The proposition asserting that "it would be against apostolic practice and the plans of God, unless easier ways were prepared for the people to unite their voice with that of the whole Church"; if understood to signify introducing of the use of popular language into the liturgical prayers,—false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the mysteries, easily productive of many evils.” 

https://hymnsandchants.com/Texts/Church/Papal/Constitutions/AuctoremFideiEnglish.pdf

https://digilander.libero.it/magistero/p6auctor.htm

Hope this helps. 

Douay-Rheims Bible
Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.  
1 corinthians 14:34.

Thank you. This is useful. I appreciate the time that you invested to help me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

I cannot find this in corinthians. I did a google search withing my Bible App but could not come up with this phrase. Kindly, could you point me to the book and paragraph?