(P1) Cardinal Bugnini was the primary architect or the Novus Ordo,
(P2) Him and 6 Protestants created the Novus Ordo,
(C) Therefore the Novus Ordo is intrinsicslly Protestant in nature.
It was created because the mass of Pius V was “too Catholic”.
Sounds like an over-simplification. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? I’m not saying that you are wrong, but it sounds a little presumptuous.
“ On 3 April 1969, Pope Paul VI published the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, with which he brought radical changes to the way of celebrating the Mass. One of the architects of the liturgical reform was Monsignor Annibale Bugnini and six Protestant pastors also took part in it, including Max Thurian of the Taizé Community, who declared: One of the fruits of the new Ordo will perhaps be that non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Holy Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically it is possible.” Source:Breve esame critico del Novus Ordo Missae - Wikipedia
Yes sir, it is an “over simplification” of course. They wanted to be able to attract Protestants, so they ended up “Protestantising” the liturgy. And to help them, they got 6 Protestant “experts”. The only explanation for why they got 6 Protestants to help create the liturgy is that Paul VI et al. wanted to make the Mass more Protestant.
Spirit and life are a single nature as shown by Saint Ambrose of Milan: “And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: The water, the blood, and the Spirit [1 Jn. 5:8]. One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.” - De Spiritu Sancto, 77
Life simply is the Spirit, for God is Life (John 14:6).
May the Lord’s countenance be upon you.
I believe Co-Redemptrix is a blasphemous term that should never be used. Co=with, redemptrix=(female) redeemer. Thus to say “co-redemptrix” is to call our mother “redeemer with Christ” which is utterly blasphemous and disgusting. Only Christ may redeem us for He is God, and His blood is precious enough to be a worthy oblation. Our lady is merely the ark, and indeed the most holy vessel by which God came. Moreover a vessel for our prayers also. I honor our lady greatly, and I love her second to our God (Whom ought to be loved with an attempted infinite love), I love her on the same level as my true mother, or perhaps even more than my true mother, but I shall never call her co-redemptrix. She was not the one who bought us back on the cross, nor was she on the cross next to Christ, nor would she have been a worthy ablation on her own.
May the Lord’s countenance be upon you.
For me, the most important point is that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid.
Jesus promised, “behold I am with you always until the end of the age”. I take from it, that he has promised never to abandon his cihurch. This should give us a lot of hope 
The point is that people have abandoned Him and His Body and His teachings by these novelties. Here is my YouTube channel explaining things like the Vatican II, heretical understanding of ecclesiological incorporation, etc: https://youtube.com/@nuncincipioprochristo?si=lIe-MmkW6AeQKmOA
May the Lord’s countenance be upon you.
I apologise for probably not being able to understand your writing enough, but are you saying that our lady pre-existed with the Father and the Son?
Are you saying that our lady is eternal? I’m truly curious, I just cannot understand your posts very well.
Did Adam and Eve disobey God or did only Adam? Adam is to blame, because God told him and not Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Eve played a role.
Likewise, Jesus (the new Adam) is the One who redeemed the world by His obedience and Sacrifice to the Father, and Mary played a part in it.
I get your point about the literal translation. Would it be more appropriate to drop the “trix” for “or”? I would think this would be equally flawed, because that could imply Mary was a male or that she equally played a part (which she did not).
I’m fine with the term. We just need to be clear about what we mean by it and what we do not mean by it. Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. Mary is not. Jesus is God. Mary is not. Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Mary and Jesus obeyed God.
Explain how our lady is co-redemptrix
I thought I just did.
You said that she had a significant role in bringing about the redeemer (and thus redemption), but you never explained how she’s “co-redemptrix”
If you and another guy start a company. He does most the work, but you play an important part. You are called a co-founder. It dose not imply that you played an equal part in the company. If think that to the modern individual, they hear equal to when they hear co.
Communion has the prefix co. We are in Communion with God, but it does not mean that we are equal to God.
Protestants think that Mary takes away from Jesus, but in actuality, she magnifies our Lord. Just like if I start a company with someone, I do not take away from what the founder is doing, I contribute to it. And I point to the founder and what he has done.
I’m not calling you a Protestant, but I am suggesting that maybe your understanding of Mary as co-redemptrix is similar to how Protestants misunderstand what we mean by it.
I disagree with this because she’s not “redemptrix” in the first place. She places a role in our temptation through Christ, but not in the slightest way does she actually play a role in redeeming us herself.
We agree on this.
I already explained how Eve had a role in Adam’s sin and how Mary had a role in Jesus’ redeeming the world to God. Rather than repeat myself, you can scroll back up and read what I had said.
I get the sense that had Vatican I defined this term, that you would be arguing in favor of it. Agree or disagree? Are three any things taught by Vatican I that you protest?
The importance of Msgr. Bugnini in the liturgical reform does not imply that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically Protestant. The six Protestants were observers without the right to vote or speak during the meetings of the Consilium. At most, they may have engaged in informal discussions with members of the Consilium, but this is not proof that any of their ideas were accepted. The vast majority of the changes to the Roman Rite had already been advocated by liturgists for quite some time before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.
Our Lady cooperated fully in God’s plan for the redemption of mankind.
Explicitly straightforward.
Her sufferings were joined with His. Our Lady at the foot of the Cross, as the Immaculate Conception, took the place of the prophets, St. Peter’s papacy not yet having reached its annointed time, as the Tree of Life became the Church in her heart, pierced by the Cross which is a sword in the virtue-rich ground and which strikes Satan and Sin, Our Lady treading on Satan as written in Genesis there and then (as she does throughout Scripture). It is no coincidence that Our Lady is invoked at the end of the Rite of Exorcism.
Yes, she is Co-Redemptrix. But for progressives the title remains problematic. St. JPII used the title over and again. The over-delicacy is by and large false ecumenism. To placate. As is, ‘The Infancy Narratives’. Protestant back-rubbing. It is possible, and which is what the argument is, that people could potentially read askew; however, when was the Church supposed to write for the unknowing. On the contrary, what is written is for those who seek God to have their knowledge affirmed and for people to learn of their faith (and not for implementing their own confirmation-bias and dictating over with the setting-up of strawman arguments).