To be consistent, you must maintain that he was a terrible modernist, who induced people to commit intrinsically evil acts in attending the new Mass (e.g., In the quote from his spiritual conference I provided, but also in his 1980 acknowledgement that those attending the NOM fulfill their Sunday obligation (which could not be the case if they were committing intrinsically evil moral acts).

PS: If the Japanese kept the faith, did they also keep the state of grace?  All Catholic theologians would consider that morally impossible without the sacraments (and any belief to the contrary is pious wishful thinking).

Wow, where to begin unraveling this?

It's clear from the +Lefebvre quote that AT THE TIME he was considering the NOM to be EXTRINSICALLY evil, evil because of the harm it does to the faith.  That was his reasoning at the time of making those quotations.  At different times over the years, he became more hard line on the NOM.

The catholics in England were martyred rather than attend an Anglican mass, one in which the only change (at first) was a philosophical one, that is, the mass was offered without the pope, in honor of King Henry VIII.  Catholics died rather than be part of this schism and blasphemy (and the Anglican communions would've been valid, let's not forget).  Yet it's ok for one to attend the new mass, which is FAR worse than the Anglican heresy, and which has FAR more blasphemies/sacrileges involved?  It makes no sense.

The Anglican heresy/schism clearly arose from a heretical act of mad King Henry VIII.  This would have been crystal clear to any true practicing Catholic wherein even the uneducated laity could discern the same for themselves, wherein they could act in accordance with their conscience.  And in so doing, many chose death instead of a clear heresy.  But the new mass was promulgated by the Pope.  How is it, then, that you can unequivocally say, with 100% confidence, that the new mass is entirely invalid? More important, how are the masses of the uneducated laity supposed to know this?  Is it all one big trick, wherein billions have been fooled, and only the Catholic intelligentsia are able to recognize the truth?  To me, that is what makes no sense.  And I ask this question in all sincerity as it is one I simply can not get my mind around.    

as they wholly reject going to the new jazz because of what it is - a sacrilege against the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary.

  I think the "new jazz" is offensive to classical jazz and certainly it is not as good as the current novus ordo music options - 1) meandering folk songs sang in operatic style by obese, ugly women, or 2) the new age, protestant-style guitar riff played by a former woodstock dude, accompanied by a hippie woman who is consistently off-key.

Wow, where to begin unraveling this?

It's clear from the +Lefebvre quote that AT THE TIME he was considering the NOM to be EXTRINSICALLY evil, evil because of the harm it does to the faith.  That was his reasoning at the time of making those quotations.  At different times over the years, he became more hard line on the NOM.

Wow, where to begin unraveling this?

The issue of intrinsic vs extrinsic evil is not germain to Lefebvre’s quote (except very indirectly); he is not discussed that point.

He is explicitly referring to the hardliners who say nobody should EVER attend a conservative NOM, and disagreeing with them, and explicitly mentioning as an exception those who would lose the faith if they could not attend Mass for a prolonged period of time (textbook example of grave spiritual necessity).

That his position later hardened is acknowledged by all, but he never ever hardened to the point of reversing or recanting this exception (not could he, without sinning, and taking upon his own conscience those who would have been damned for having lost the faith in an attempt to abide by such an idiotic and uncatholic rule).

Not even the 1981 pledge of fidelity (by which all SSPX priests promised never to positively advise someone to attend the new Mass”) precludes this, since necessity is a cause excusing from the law.

The Pfeifferian/Hewkonian/LaRosan error has made a caricature of Lefebvre’s position.

Note to Pax: If you are now backing away from your initial claim that the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense (which is good to see), then you are simultaneously and unavoidably compelled to acknowledge there can be circuмstances which make that attendance permissible, since it is only intrinsically evil moral acts which allow for no exceptions.

How is it, then, that you can unequivocally say, with 100% confidence, that the new mass is entirely invalid? 

I do not say it is 100% invalid.  I say its validity is 100% doubtful, as did Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci, who were the top theologians in rome, in the 60s.  There are 3 major doubts:  1) consecration, 2) validity of the mass in general (being it has protestant, anti-Trent theology), and 3) priestly ordinations.  Canon law does not allow one to attend doubtful masses or sacraments, under penalty of grave sin.
.
On the contrary, even if we could say that the consecration was 100% valid and the priests were 100% priests, it is still wrong to attend 100% because 1) it is an illegal mass, which is sinful to say/attend, per Quo Primum.  2) The new mass, as a whole, still has anti-catholic theology and also a deficient offertory and other canon prayers.  This makes the new mass, as whole, invalid because it's purpose is not as Christ created the mass  3) The new mass' atmosphere promotes irreverence, sacrileges (i.e. communion in the hand), and protestant thinking.

More important, how are the masses of the uneducated laity supposed to know this?  Is it all one big trick, wherein billions have been fooled, and only the Catholic intelligentsia are able to recognize the truth?  To me, that is what makes no sense. 

Those who were adults in the 60s and 70s knew their Faith.  They were not fooled into accepting the new mass or V2 - they wanted it.  Those that did not, God provided to them priests who started the Traditionalist movement.
.
Those baby boomers who were young in the 60s and 70s have grown up.  They are now the people at the local dioceses who hate the indult mass, who ignored Fatima, who loved JPII's theatrical presence and his global popularity, who didn't like Benedict's "conservatism" and who love Francis, because he is continuing to water down ideals and make the church a "welcoming place" to all kinds of diversity.  No, the baby boomers have rejected Tradition too, and have accepted V2's ideals on the whole.  They've been aware of the sspx since the 80s.  They've had the opportunity of latin masses both indult and Traditional for 4 solid decades.  They don't want true catholicism.
.
The millenial generation, however, is way more accepting of the indult/latin mass.  They are more open to the True Faith, and God has provided them ways to find it, especially through the internet.  Where there's a will, there's a way (especially when it comes to Truth and salvation).  Our chapel is full of people who found Tradition in the most obscure ways.  They had good will; God did the rest.

Note to Pax: If you are now backing away from your initial claim that the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense (which is good to see), then you are simultaneously and unavoidably compelled to acknowledge there can be circuмstances which make that attendance permissible, since it is only intrinsically evil moral acts which allow for no exceptions.

I said from the beginning, only the Church can decide the intrinsic question..or at least not me.  I tend to believe it is intrinsically evil (as +Ottaviani said, it has an anti-Trent theology...how can something anti-Trent be catholic?  How can this be good?)  Even if it's not intrinsically evil, there are 100s of other reasons one cannot attend, both related to church law and related to circuмstantial moral issues in its atmosphere.

The issue of intrinsic vs extrinsic evil is not germain to Lefebvre’s quote (except very indirectly); he is not discussed that point.

It most certainly is.  His major consideration is how harmful it is to a person's faith.

It might not be harmful to the faith, but it would still be intrinsically evil in the scholastic (but not moral) sense, since howsoever they might put traditional veneers upon that Rite, it still lacks an offertory and any reference to sacrifice and a sacrificial priesthood.

I agree, a "reverent" novus ordo is still wrong because it's not a mass, which REQUIRES the idea of sacrifice. 
.
The question of harm to one's faith is of secondary importance (if that high) when considering the evil of the new mass.  What is of the highest importance is the question:  Is God honored, glorified, asked for forgiveness and thanked for all His goodness?  Is God worshipped as He deserves?  Is the sacrifice offered to Him perfect and spotless? 
.
The true mass is about God, for God, and prayed to God.  The new mass is centered on "the people".  The true theology looks at Mass as being present at the sacrifice of Calvary.  The novus ordo looks at mass as being present at the Holy Thursday communion service.  They couldn't be more opposite in purpose or in focus.  Is God's justice appeased without sacrifice?  No.  The new mass is evil because it pretends to be a sacrifice, when it's just a Eucharistic memorial.