Prior to this post, all of Cub's activity had been related to end-times scenarios ... financial collapse, etc.

I believe this might be the same person as a poster on this forum:  www.timebomb2000.com

I was actually on that secular forum (got booted several times for anti-Semitism and just opened new accounts), and during one of my vocal anti-Protestant rants, someone pointed me in the direction of CathInfo.

What's funny about that forum is that I would regularly post, usually in opposition to bitter anti-Catholic ex Catholics, about the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church", and they had no problem with that.  I got sidelined to their "Religion" forum, but never banned for this.  But the minute I made even the mildest implicit criticism of Israel, I was banned within seconds of hitting the "Post" button.

My point is that 100% certainty that the NO is valid would not make any difference to my decision to avoid it. 

Right, there are also the issues of it being illegal and immoral, therefore sinful.

Pax,

The Tridentine canons are legislating the mass; keep in mind this is (shortly) before Quo Primum.  The part about mortal sin means if the priest purposefully adds things to the formula, he sins.  Not that the faithful who attend a mass where this is done sin (they wouldn't know about it in most cases anyways, given the relative silence of the consecration).  Certain rites and uses of the liturgy throughout Europe not infrequently enjoyed organic developments with prayers being added over time (In England alone there were three or four uses-- Sarum, Durham, York).  The legislation you're quoting is saying that you can't do that to the consecration formulas.
.
If Paul VI was pope he has all the authority in the world to re-legislate this type of thing, and infallibility would protect him from doing it in a way that invalidates the consecration.
.
The validity of it, as mentioned, is more of an academic point (an interesting one, too).  As a matter of praxis, the most powerful reason not to attend the Novus Ordo is that it is, at very best, an extremely inferior form of worship without any uniquely Catholic expressions of faith.  I wouldn't want to be misconstrued as suggesting that it should be attended, as I believe quite strongly that it shouldn't be.

It is objectively illegal (which is sinful) and the atmosphere is irreverent and sometimes blasphemous (also sinful).  Yes, they do commit a sin by attending.  If their conscience does not tell them so, then they have an ill-formed conscience, which is also a sin.

To what DEGREE will God hold them accountable for attending this new mass?  Only He knows.  But you can't say they don't commit a sin by attending - that's based on emotions and not facts.

If Paul VI was pope he has all the authority in the world to re-legislate this type of thing, and infallibility would protect him from doing it in a way that invalidates the consecration.

I agree that one cannot say that the new mass is invalid based on the words alone.  But the changes do give rise to doubts, which can't be ignored.

Secondly, the pope cannot change the canon as he sees fit because it is of Divine origin and not his to change.  A pope cannot "bind and loose" God's laws, only human ones.

Thirdly, as above, the new consecration formula is not necessarily invalid but as Cardinal Ottaviani pointed out, in the True Mass the words and intention of the priest were contained in the formula.  In the new mass, the intention is lacking, even if the words are still present.  So, the new mass is not TECHNICALLY invalid, but can very easily be so due to the intention which MUST be supplied by the priest. 

So, based on the faulty theology they are taught at the seminary AND on the faulty ordination rite, we have doubts that their intention is correct.  The point being, one cannot say BY VIEWING A NEW MASS that "it was valid" for it all depends on the priest.  Therefore, in 99% of cases, the new mass is DOUBTFULLY valid since most priests are doubtfully trained properly and doubtfully ordained.

You can't say on the one hand that sin is committed while on the other hand saying that God might not hold them accountable for it.  If God is holding them accountable for it, they're sinning.  That's what sin is; an imputation of guilt for wrong done.

Sin exists independently of the guilt for it.  Sin is an offense against God.  Our guilt for the sin is subjective.

Sin exists independently of the guilt for it.  Sin is an offense against God.  Our guilt for the sin is subjective.

.
There's a serious problem with equivocation here; sin is an offense against God, yes, but God is not offended by acts which are committed without guilt (i.e., acts which occur without commensurate will, knowledge, and intent).  Sin, definitionally, includes guilt.  If sin "exists independently of guilt" then animals sin, they just aren't guilty of sin.  If sin exists "independently of guilt" then I sin if I fall out a window to my death while trying to bring my child back inside who's hanging on by their fingernails.  The word loses all its meaning when you distinguish it from guilt and you'll not find any Catholic material that supports your view.
.

There's a serious problem with equivocation here; sin is an offense against God, yes, but God is not offended by acts which are committed without guilt (i.e., acts which occur without commensurate will, knowledge, and intent).  Sin, definitionally, includes guilt.  

First you have to separate the action from the guilt - they are separate.  In the natural law, most actions are neutral acts (i.e. neither morally good nor evil) until circuмstances or intent enters the equation and then a sin is committed.

Example: Killing someone is a morally neutral act.  It is only a sin when malicious intent makes it so.
Example:  Stealing something is wrong BUT if the circuмstances are that you are starving, then it is allowed to steal and no sin is committed.

But when we talk about acts related to God and religion, ANY offense against these areas are ALWAYS wrong, independent of intent or circuмstances.  This is because offenses directly against God are inherently evil, since God is all-holy.  There are no morally neutral acts towards God - all acts contrary to holiness are wrong, in and of themselves because Holiness exists outside of ourselves.  The intent/circuмstances affects our guilt, but the act against God is still wrong.

Example:  A 3 yr old goes around saying blasphemy and horrible things about God.  What he said is gravely offensive but he's not guilty because he doesn't know better.

If sin "exists independently of guilt" then animals sin, they just aren't guilty of sin.  If sin exists "independently of guilt" then I sin if I fall out a window to my death while trying to bring my child back inside who's hanging on by their fingernails.  The word loses all its meaning when you distinguish it from guilt and you'll not find any Catholic material that supports your view.

Your examples are of the natural law, of which there are always exceptions, levels of priority, etc.  Offenses against the Divine Law and order have no exceptions.