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?

The first quote was from I Corinthians, not the second.  
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
is 1 Timothy 2:12.

Thank you.

This type of evidence is precisely what I am looking for but I cannot see whre this particular quote conflicts with the NO liturgy or the NO Missal.

In the new Mass, the whole Canon including the words of Consecration are said out loud instead of in a low tone. This is condemned by that Canon of Trent that I cited.
The phrase "let him be anathema" when used by a pope or general council is a technical term that means someone who incurs that anathema is contradicting a truth that is infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed and therefore is a heretic.

http://www.catholictreasures.com/articles/25errors.html

Thank you. These were instrumental for me. They recently served to open questions in the heart of a very sincere and humble diocesan priest. Would you know of a similar list specifically for the NO liturgy?

Ascanio1,
Have you read the "Ottaviani Intervention" yet?  This was written by multiple Cardinals, many of whom were the top theologians in Rome.  Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc.  This report tears apart the novus ordo's protestant, anti-Trent and neo-Catholic theology.  No one can read this and come to any other conclusion except that the new mass is unorthodox, not Traditional, and anti-Catholic.

Apologies if it took me so long to read what you recommended. I have little free time and a lot of catechism to learn.

Yes, I finally got around to reading the Ottaviani Report and the The great Sacrilege.

The new liturgy has many problems and, I agree, after reading this literature, that the new liturgy is the work of the devil or, at least, the work of very confused bishops.

I understood that the new liturgy uses subtle variations to dilute the unicity and kinship of Christ, the Apostolic succession and their teachings and, omits the concept of Sacrifice and uses nuances to allow for the faithful's individual interpretation of the Teachings of the Church. I do not possess sufficient command of English language to render concisely my understanding. This is the best that i can do.

Please note my complete agreement that the NO is harmful for our Faith, before continuing to read.

Now, unfortunately, I am ignorant of doctrine and dogma. This ignorance challenges my discovery of precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma by the N.O. liturgy.

Even the introduction of female readers and altar girls, while indirectly rebuked in a Papal encyclica, is not forbidden in doctrine or in infallible doctrine. An other example would be offering the Body of Christ in the hand of the faithful... also this is not explicitly forbidden by any doctrine or dogma; indirect references can be found in doctors of the Church and Popes or other non binding docuмents, all very notable and authoritative, but none possessing the authority of infallibility or, at least, doctrine.

We all appreciate how canon and precepts can change, within the boundaries of our Faith, because these are mere administrative and spiritaul supports to the mission of saving souls. One other example is the great canonical difference in how the Pope has been elected through the centuries: by the state, by the people, by the cardinals; originally in a semy lay framework, then in a mixed framwork, finally in a fully clergy framework; also the procedures and regulations varied very greatly. Yet not Pope has ever later been declared an anti-Pope because of variation in the canonical framework of his election.

So, my challenge, does not lie in agreeing that the new liturgy hurts the Faith.

More precisely, my challenge lies in constructing a valid and verifiable, yet concise and easily understandable, instrument to save the souls of those whom I love.

It is futile to point the finger at those who like Vatican II and settle the problem by saying: "They will burn in hell, it's their problem". I love some who like Vatican II and I make it my personal, not religious, responsibility to try to save them, even if belive that they do not need to be saved.

Also, my conviction is that it is always my responsibility to explain my ideas, not the listeners responsibility to understand them. Of course some listeners will be in good faith and truly do not understand my ideas while others will be in bad faith and will not want to understand my ideas. But their good or bad faith is irrelevant to me. It only means that I must be all the more convincing so that my ideas become so evident, simple and clear that even those in bad faith will have to concede.

Unfortunately, the liturgy variation is not evident, not simple and not clear to understand.

Also, I cannot ask someone, even if in good faith, to read a whole book only to be convinced of my arguments. I did it, I followed your advice and it was helpful and I am grateful as it was convicing. Others will not accept to invest time only because I recommend them to do so.

This does not reduce in the least, in fact it only increases, my desire to save those whom I love.

Can anyone who possesses greater knowledge of doctrine and infallible teachings help me discovery precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma, by the N.O. liturgy?

Please do not refer to books or articles, but only to specific doctrines and dogmas.

Even the introduction of female readers and altar girls, while indirectly rebuked in a Papal encyclicals, is not forbidden in doctrine or in infallible doctrine.

Not true.  Female priests are absolutely forbidden both doctrinally, Scripturally and by Tradition.  St Paul says that women are not to take part in Church functions.  Traditions of the Church have forbidden women from being readers and altar girls since the Church started.  Modernists like to point to the early church to support "female deacons" but not much is known of this phenomenon.  We don't know what they did, nor when they were condemned (as they obviously were condemned at some point, because they don't exist anymore).  The idea of women in the sanctuary is even forbidden, even to clean the sacristy, except for cases of necessity.
.

An other example would be offering the Body of Christ in the hand of the faithful... also this is not explicitly forbidden by any doctrine or dogma; indirect references can be found in doctors of the Church and Popes or other non binding docuмents, all very notable and authoritative, but none possessing the authority of infallibility or, at least, doctrine.

Not true.  The 1st century has orders of one of the early popes condemning the faithful from reception of the eucharist in the hands.  St Thomas Aquinas also condemned it.  The very reason that the Latin Church stopped giving Holy Communion with both bread and wine, was to stop the "accidents" of the host and wine being spilled on the ground.  One of the very top privileges of the priesthood is the consecration of some of his fingers, which the faithful have none of this.  St Isaac Jogues, a priest, had to receive special permission FROM THE POPE, to offer mass with his non-consecrated fingers, since the Indians chewed off his consecrated ones.  So, even a priest is not allowed to touch Our Lord with fingers that aren't consecrated.
.

Unfortunately, the liturgy variation is not evident, not simple and not clear to understand.

Agree.  But we are all called to learn our Faith on a continuing basis.  This doesn't stop after high school.  Those that do not want to read and continue to learn will be held accountable.  God bless you for your continued efforts.

Also, I cannot ask someone, even if in good faith, to read a whole book only to be convinced of my arguments. I did it, I followed your advice and it was helpful and I am grateful as it was convincing. Others will not accept to invest time only because I recommend them to do so.

Those that will not study such a topic, which is of paramount importance to their souls, will be held accountable for spiritual sloth.  Let's pray for them to change their minds!

This does not reduce in the least, in fact it only increases, my desire to save those whom I love.  Can anyone who possesses greater knowledge of doctrine and infallible teachings help me discovery precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma, by the N.O. liturgy?

Please do not refer to books or articles, but only to specific doctrines and dogmas.

The Ottaviani booklet is the most summarized study that I know of.  Why can't you further summarize it and type out the "Top 5" violations?  It's all there.

It is a modernist trick to use an ambiguity of language to pretend that there were once women taking on a role corresponding to the ordained diaconate.

Exactly.  Thanks for the good history info.

This https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm is the first of an interesting series of articles. It was recommended by a kind lady in Kansas (US) but, unfortunately, while it is very useful for my personal studies, it is not the tool that I was searching for to open the eys of those whom I love.

The Greek word diakonos originally means a servant.  
... CUT ...
It is a modernist trick to use an ambiguity of language to pretend that there were once women taking on a role corresponding to the ordained diaconate.  There is no real justification for women to be given the office of deacon.

Thank you Jaynek, as usual you are very interesting and informative to read.

Not true. Female priests are absolutely forbidden both doctrinally, Scripturally and by Tradition.
.
Not true. ...CUT... early popes condemning the faithful from reception of the eucharist in the hands.  St Thomas Aquinas also condemned it.

You are correct.

I explained myself inadequately. I used the words doctrine + dogma. I should have used only the word dogma.

My challenge lies in the difficulty of making a simple, concise and eloquent case if I base my apology on theology and Faith as these require extensive knowledge and study to be understood, appreciates and discussed.

I can articulate a case with greater simplicity and vigour, if I can point to dogmatic conflicts as these translate, unequivocally, in heresy. I made a mistake to include doctrine because doctrine too, like canon, can be changed by the Church. It is difficult to explain why a change in doctrine is an error. It is easy to explain that a dogma cannot be changed.

For example, while this is true: "St Paul says that women are not to take part in Church functions.  Traditions of the Church have forbidden women from being readers and altar girls since the Church started.", it is not a dogma. Anything that is not infallible, at least in point of principle, is susceptible to amendment and, hence St Paul and St Aquinas are very authoritative voices, but are not infallible. Just as Pope Francis today.

The best I could do, so far, is to download this: www.unavox.it › PDF › Opuscoli › Breve_Esame_Critico but I have very little hope that it will be read at all...

I appreciate your continued help. It certainly reinforces my conviction, even if, unfortunately, I cannot use those arguments in my apologies.

Agree. But we are all called to learn our Faith on a continuing basis.  This doesn't stop after high school.  Those that do not want to read and continue to learn will be held accountable.  God bless you for your continued efforts.

Those that will not study such a topic, which is of paramount importance to their souls, will be held accountable for spiritual sloth.  Let's pray for them to change their minds!

What angers me is the deceitful way in which reformers fight their battle which almost brings me to admire Luter...

Luter, at least, fought us openly: he stood against the Pope and the Church and laid out, clearly, his critiques, his proposed reforms and his open intention to create a new church. Present Church governance have the same goal but diguise it with nuanced language and vague, written, doctrinal changes that open the door to concrete, drastic, doctrinal revolutions. Both Luter and conciliars share the same goal. Luter was, at least, intellectually honest.

The end result is that Luter had to convince and convert new faithful to his new religion, while conciliars don't convince and convert but swindle and carry, unknowing Catholic faithful, into a new faith/religion.

The devil is cunning and admirably smart...

it is not a dogma. Anything that is not infallible, at least in point of principle, is susceptible to amendment

Not true.  Not only is dogma infallible, but also Scripture and...the constant Traditions of the Church.  The issues of women being involved in Church and communion in the hand have to do with Church Traditions and the constant history through the ages.  It has nothing to do with doctrine.  Traditions can never be said to be "infallible" but they are protected from amendments just the same.
.
I appreciate your search for clear, concise statements which prove that the V2 church is wrong.  But these don't exist.  In order to see that V2 is wrong, one must know their Faith (which includes both a knowledge and a respect for the Church's Traditions), and also have a prayer life, whereby God can enlighten those so that they have a "Catholic sense" of what is good and pleasing to Him. 
.
The Modernists changed those things which they knew could get away with; things which, on the surface, did not seem wrong to change, but, like a 1,000 paper cuts, would slowly kill the Faith of everyone.  They are the devil's henchmen and the devil will do everything bad that God will allow Him to.  Those that recognize the errors of V2 have only done so through prayer, as only God can enlighten us as to the devil's confusion.  Those that do not see, are those that do not pray.