All valid masses have valid consecrations, but not all valid consecrations are done inside a valid mass.

A valid mass MUST have a valid Offertory, Canon, Communion.

I'm not sure if valid is the right word for this.  Most people use the expression "valid Mass" to mean a Mass in which transubstantiation takes place.

Yes, maybe the word is not invalid but unholy.  

If the mass is composed of 3 principle parts (Offertory, Canon, Communion) then it stands to reason that if the Offertory is deficient then so is the mass.  A valid consecration only ensures that the Canon is valid.  It can’t ensure that the mass is perfect being that 1 part cannot perfect the other 2, for each part is separate.  

The Offertory is important for the validity of the mass....or should we say HOLINESS of the mass.  So, since the Offertory frames the PURPOSE of the Canon, the PURPOSE of the mass itself (by specifically mentioning atonement for sins, adoration of God, etc) then if the Offertory is deficient or if it only mentions 1 or 2 of the purposes of the mass (instead of all 4), then the mass is not perfect, therefore it is not holy, therefore it is displeasing to God, just as Cain’s offering was imperfect and second-rate.  The Offertory changes are mainly what makes the mass Protestant - the minimization/deletion of the idea of an “offering” an “offeror” an “oblation” and a “sacrifice”.  

Further, the systematic and pervasive “Communion in the hand” approach to Communion also attributes to the unholiness of the new mass, since the purpose and reverence which is essentially inherent in the sacrament is corrupted.  Even if the Offertory was a perfect English translation, Communion in the hand is an abominable sacrilegious scandal which cries to heaven for reparation.  (Of course, this assumes that the priest is actually a priest and his intention is also valid).

The further possibility that the priest could be a fake is another scandal and act of unholiness.  

Then you have the problem of the priest (assuming he’s one) having a faulty intention of a “supper” or “memorial” or “remembrance” instead of an actual sacrifice.  (I’ve had novus ordo people tell me that the sacrifice of Calvary was a memorial but the Communion sacrifice was real.  Or vice versa.  Or both are real.  Or both are memorials.  ...The fact that they even refer to the mass as TWO DIFFERENT SACRIFICES shows how much the new theology is a lie and an anti-catholic mess.  And who knows WHAT the “priest” thinks about it all!  His idea/intentions could be just as screwed up!)

So, just as a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but be be utterly abominable in God’s eyes because it’s PURPOSE is unholy, so the new mass’ deficient Offertory is imperfect and unholy, therefore the mass as a whole is imperfect and unholy.  

We can say the new mass is unholy because the True Mass is perfectly holy, since it is from God Himself.  Yet when the new mass changed from perfect to imperfect, through the actions of man, the result is an unholy liturgy because nothing from man is holy.  It is not possible to improve upon God, therefore any change to His ways are a departure from He who is Holiness itself.  

The Mass isn't a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament.  If the Eucharist is confected, the mass is valid. By analogy a baptism, no matter the ceremony surrounding it, is valid if the baptismal form and matter are correctly applied. 
.
Talking about the Novus Ordo mass intrinsically ("by the book" and without regard to the problem with Novus Ordo orders), it seems valid to me.  Not a hill I'm willing to die on, but for whatever it's worth.  I wouldn't regard it as a Catholic liturgy, though.  And probably mostly for the very reason you've highlighted, Pax.  It has no real offertory. 
.

You do not seem to understand the actual position of traditionalists (both in general and on this forum).  Few, if any, would say that the main problem with the new Mass is that it is in the vernacular.  The new Mass is not simply a translation of the Traditional Mass.  The Novus Ordo omits and changes the prayers of the Traditional Mass, often with serious theological implications.  I cannot recall ever seeing someone question the validity of the Novus Ordo only because of its language, but rather they do so due to these changes.  The words of Consecration were tampered with, so these concerns are justified.  If you want to have a real discussion with traditionalists (and not merely troll the forum) you need to understand what traditionalists believe and not argue with a caricature as you have been.

As has already been stated, the claims in the video are nonsense.  There is no history of spontaneous rather than liturgical worship throughout the first eight centuries of the Church.  While the video mentioned many names of Saints, it presented no quotes or other evidence to support its claims.  The only group known for Charismatic style worship was a heretical group called Montanists.

However, even if it were true, that would not be reason to model our worship today on these alleged ancient practices.  That would be the error of antiquarianism, condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Perhaps reading this encyclical would give you a better understanding of the Catholic understanding of liturgy.  You currently seem to have a poor grasp of the subject.  [AND HE LIKES IT THAT WAY!]  Here is a link:  http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

I see that Mithrandylan posted as I was typing my answer.  I agree that the Ottaviani Intervention would help you to understand the real issues.  Here is a link for that too: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

.
As usual, you've done a fine job of defending Tradition, JayneK, but it would seem your words would be lost on the recipient ("the Cub"), since he's most likely not about to read what you wrote, or, at best, if he does read it, he won't pay attention to what you're saying, but will only attempt to refute or argue against your sound propositions.
.
He's not going to read Mediator Dei either, for the same reasons! He doesn't want to know what it contains, because it's inconvenient for his agenda.

The Mass isn't a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament.  If the Eucharist is confected, the mass is valid.

This doesn't make sense to me.  The Eucharist is PART of the mass.  The mass is MORE than just the Eucharist.  So, just because the Eucharist is confected, doesn't mean the mass is valid.  You can confect the Eucharist without an Offertory or a Communion, but that doesn't mean that a mass took place.

For example, in "De Defectibus" Pius V explains that if a priest dies after the consecration but before the Canon is complete, the mass is NOT complete.  Another priest would have to complete the mass where the first one left off.  This proves that the consecration is not the "litmus test" for the mass being valid.

A sacrifice must have 3 things to be complete - an offering, the sacrifice of the victim and the consuming of the victim.  The new mass does not have a valid/holy offering, it MAY have the sacrifice of the victim and it does have the consuming.


---
Speaking of the new mass' irreverance, here is an exerpt from the Council of Trent on the Mass, Session 22, first decree.  Let us all pray for these poor new massers' that God may open their eyes to see that the new liturgy is displeasing to God, that they may leave this sacrilegious atmosphere and come to the Truth.
 
What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety.

https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/31482784/De-Defectibus-Decree-of-Trent

Chapter 2
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting tocomplete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum;

and: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui provobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid.  An addition made without altering the meaning doesnot invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.

---

From Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum, introduction of the New Mass:
Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR;

over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.

The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.

---

It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning.  It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning.  It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday.  All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.

What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance.  The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.

.
As usual, you've done a fine job of defending Tradition, JayneK, but it would seem your words would be lost on the recipient ("the Cub"), since he's most likely not about to read what you wrote, or, at best, if he does read it, he won't pay attention to what you're saying, but will only attempt to refute or argue against your sound propositions.
.
He's not going to read Mediator Dei either, for the same reasons! He doesn't want to know what it contains, because it's inconvenient for his agenda.

Correct.  Cub is nothing more than a troll.  He heard about Traditional Catholics, maybe Googled it up, maybe ran into one somewhere, and felt as if he would do the world a service by converting some of those Trads who are known to hang out at CathInfo.  He has about as much theological aptitude, given his Novus Ordo background, as a local-variety garden turnip.  So theological arguments are wasted on Cub.

It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning.  It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning.  It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday.  All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.

What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance.  The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.

I think this was a good summary of probably the strongest argument for claiming the NO is invalid. I agree, that, whether or not it makes the NO invalid, it was wrong to make changes that affected the Consecration.  I question, however, your last comment:

"What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance.  The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin."

I don't think it is public knowledge.  It seems to me that the average Novus Ordo attendee has no idea that the formula is different.  In my experience, the vast majority think that the NO is a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass and that the only real difference between them is the language.