Matthew, you forgot Point 9, the most important and damning:
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".  
So says, Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci, etc who were TRAINED THEOLOGIANS.

+W is not a trained theologian.  Ottaviani and Bacci were.  I trust their opinion, especially when the facts support it.  +W's opinion rests on emotion and sentimentality.  

Point 10: The new mass is meant to REPLACE the True Mass, which is why it's not Catholic.  It is meant to be revolutionary, to be a false mass, to be deficient.  So say those who created it.  

Let us tradify them.

John Grace, I agree with this 1000%.  The problem is, I question whether +W believes this.  If one cannot save his soul in the V2 church, then we must warn this person of their spiritual danger.  +W keeps preaching as if one CAN be saved being a novus ordo catholic.  By this logic, then our motivation for 'tradifying' them is low or nonexistent.  Don't you see a problem with +W's thinking?

I cannot agree with Matthew on this, his main point:

But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.

Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.

We can say, after 50 years of evidence, with absolute certainty, that the novus ordo is anti-catholic in nature, it is heretically ecuмenical in purpose, and freemasonic in origin.  It is illicit, it is highly doubtful in validity and sacrilegously immoral.  We have 50 years of 'bad fruits', 50 years of quotes from modern theologians, and freemasons, and modernist clerics - who admit to its 'new' catholicism, and 50 years of critique by trained theologians, priests and laymen.  All this points to one conclusion - it is not catholic, ergo you cannot go, under any circuмstances.

Quote:
But which of us can truly say what God thinks of the Novus Ordo Mass -- or even speak with 100% certainty about its validity? No one.

Sure, we need to avoid it -- but that doesn't mean we can pontificate about the specifics of how bad it is, or in what circuмstances.

We know what God thinks about it by what the Church teaches and by what the
 Church has condemned and those things we can know with the certainty of Faith.

We need not pontificate when we can simply judge it by what the Church teaches and the irrefutable evidence of the damage it has cause to Christ's Church and His Faithful.
Circuмstances never alter objective truths or facts. The only thing that they can change is men's subjective perception of them, as has been the case here.

When all is truth, I cannot pick and choose,
But lies mixed in with truth I must refuse.

Amen.

It seems Novus Ordites think obedience is doing what you don't like, but obedience is doing the will of a superior in truth, not in truth or in falsity indifferently. Indifferentism (e.g., religious indifferentism) is one of the greatest errors of Modernism. Indifferentism is lukewarmness enshrined as Modernist "dogma," and something Christ rightfully vomits out of His Mystical Body.

Why do some feel compelled to take a giant leap from the recognition of Eucharistic miracles in the NO to a mistaken conclusion that +W teaches that one may be saved in the NO?  I don't see this in his ECs.  It is quite possible that some or many will be saved within the NO.  And who is anyone prove differently, or to assert with absolute authority that Catholics in the NO will not be saved?

+W implies that those in the NO can be saved when he says that God can 'nourish innocent souls'.  Well, for how long can they remain ignorant?  It's been 50 years.  Why is +W defending them?  From whom is he defending them?  I don't condemn them, I don't hate them, but the facts show that they are in danger, whether 'innocent' or not.  Can one be saved in the NO?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

Is an 'innocent' unbaptized newborn in danger of missing heaven if they die unbaptized?  Yes.  Am I wrong for saying so?  No, I'm being merciful for explaining their danger.

Objectively, the V2 church is in error.  Objectively, the NOM is not a mass.  Objectively, those who die in error and without the mass will lose their souls.  As +W told us, this is how we "use our brains" - to apply Thomistic, scholastic logic to the confusing times at hand.

Now...subjectively, some will be saved in the V2 church.  But...this is God's realm, as He can read all hearts, and knows the ignorance, laziness and culpability of everyone.  He is the only one who can judge this realm.  Not you, not me, not +W.

So, we must preach the hard, Catholic truths.  Those in the V2 church are in danger of damnation.  We must TEACH them, we must PREACH to them, we must WARN them of their errors.  We cannot argue that this or that miracle, or this or that 'pious' new-priest is ok to follow.  For this minimizes the error they are in and does not help them to LEARN.  

Ignorance is a punishment for sin; it is not a one-way ticket to heaven.  Ignorance does not save, for we all have the DUTY to know our Faith and to grow in the Truth.  If one is ignorant of the spiritual danger they are in, objectively, they must change in order to be saved.  It is our duty to help them, as did the missionaries of old.  We should not be condoning their dangerous situation by saying they are 'sweet, innocent, pious' catholics whom God loves and won't punish because it's "not their fault" they grew up in the V2 church.  No, they must reject the V2 errors and false mass and they must hold to the FULL faith and ALL the commandments in order to be saved.  Anything less than this puts their salvation in danger.  As it does for all of us.

Quote from: John Grace

Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.

My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.).

I, and probably Bishop Williamson, would class these persons as "casualties" of the Novus Ordo system. These are they who have lost the Faith. The dead, the casualties.

However, this does not describe 100% of those attending the Novus Ordo, so your argument is invalid.

Again I ask:

Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?

I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).

I'd be happy to.  

Once you show that apparitions and locutions are the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.

Or, is this just "Matthew's Criteria"?

I'll wait.