"The Novus Ordo is not invalid. Never has been, never will be."
You know some people like mantras - like the above. It keeps them safe and secure in their little perfect world. Unthreatened by any possibility of a mode of thought which might "rock their world" and give them even the tiniest fleeting feeling of insecurity.
See, because if the NO were invalid, persons like this one would totally freak! It is vitally important to their way of life, income, and mental security that it be so. To even consider the possibility of another mode of thought - an alternative opinion - is devestating to them.
It's also because some people earn their livelyhood from the NO establishment, dispensing annulments, etc. So, such an opinion threatens them as a person, not in an intellectual manner.
Otherwise, such a person would be able to rationally construct an argument to oppose such a thesis.
Back off.
You know as well as I do that the NO, (all other things being equal) is a perfectly valid Rite.
And you ALSO know as well as I do that, for example, the Green Bay Diocese was a "divorce mill" LONG before VatII--it was known for that problem in the 1940's and '50's.
That was before VatII--and Rembert Weakland was ordained before VatII--we could go on.
Post/propter fallacy. 20 yards, loss of down.
If you have something to say to me, say it to my face. Stop hiding behind Deborah's skirts, nancyboy.
If you have an argument to posit that proves the Novus Ordo is invalid, let's hear it.
Otherwise, be known as a liar, on two threads.