Well, Sneakyticks, what you note concerning the "Institutional Narratives" is a real problem in the New Mass, and it can contribute to defect of intention. Obviously, if a priest were to simply recall the words in a historical context (for e.g. in reading the Gospel), then he would not accomplish the sacrament. But this does not establish the form is itself invalid, but only raises the problem of intention. As noted above, St. Thomas among others held that if a priest were to pronounce only the words "This is My Body" etc, with the intention of performing the sacrament, he would accomplish it. Here
is the passage in St. Thomas, Under the Question, "Article 1. Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This is the chalice of My blood"?", the Angelic Doctor says,
Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words ... But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people. Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus ...".
In going over this again, I observe that St. Thomas has answered some of Mr. Omlor's objections.
Ladislaus, in De Eucharistia, Father addresses precisely some of the objections you raise. I will quote a passage later, from memory, his responses respectively were something like this - Just as God saying "Let there be light" was necessary and sufficient to effect the creation of light, so the words This is My Body/Blood are necessary and sufficient to effect transubstantiation, because God's word, or Christ's words spoken through priest, effect what they declare, while the words following designate and describe what is effected. To the second objection, which Father also treats, that these words independently of those following do not sufficiently indicate the sacrificial reality they ought to signify, the reply was that the separate consecration of the bread and wine within the Mass itself mystically signifies the Sacrifice, for a sacrifice is the separation of Body and Blood, so that the sacrifice to be effected is sufficiently indicated by that alone.
To the third objection, that for all would invalidate the sacrament, Father doesn't treat this directly, but he mentions two points against it - the first is that Christ said He would give His flesh for the "life of the world" (Jn 6:51), and second that it is true to say that Christ's blood was shed for all, if it is understood as for all sufficiently, for many efficaciously.
The words St. Pius V ordered to be expunged were where Cardinal Cajetan, after citing St. Thomas' opinion in favor of the short form consecration, had said this, “Even if the intention of St. Thomas would be contrary, it does not matter.” The reason the Pope ordered it to be removed was because it was not sufficiently reverent to the Angelic Doctor, as Fr. Garrigou says, I'll cite that in my next post.
Abp. Lefebvre has cited Fr. Garrigou's works in this context, and His Grace always held the New Mass was not per se invalid, for which he was criticized by sedevacantists. The Society holds the same, but that is a moot point anyway, since the Society rejects this Mass as in itself bad, and also rejects the heterodox principles of the Conciliar reform. But it isn't true that 98+% of nominal Catholics attend an invalid Mass, or adore bread.