I never said he said it was invalid. But Ratzinger does say it is contrary to Trent--and he has criticized sharply the versus populi.
I cite Ratzinger because people like yourself who have supported the conciliar popes out of a false sense of "obedience" are impressed by such citations. For myself, they are unnecessary. Anybody who's been exposed to the ancient Mass and compares it to the Novus Ordo, would recognize at once that the latter fudges on the sacrificial elements, ignoring entirely the dogma of Propitiation and thereby offending against the Father and the Son. It also offends by turning its back on the Father to face instead the congregation, and by making much of the virtual presence of Christ in the people while ignoring the Real Presence of Christ on the altar. The so-called "sacrifice" you talk about is the usual modernist trick of re-defining established terms and making them mean what modernists wish them to mean. To the modernist, the sacrifice of the Novus Ordo is one of praise and thanksgiving, a celebration of the people's salvation, not a sacrifice of true Propitiation for sins. As such it is an abomination. How can you wonder at the bad fruits that have flowed from it?
By the way, traditionalists like myself are not schismatics. If you continue to use this term, I no longer will exchange posts with you. By now it's pretty clear you do this to insult and not to discuss disagreements reasonably. I have made it clear why this term has been falsely applied. People who mean well respect this. You do not.