But, if you go as far in saying that all the NO mass are indeed invalid... then one can only conclude that Jesus would have abandoned it's Church to corruption.
This was not said, Éric. (E-grave pour un nom scandinavien?)
It is correct, that the intention in the Novus Ordo Mass, if the priest would follow the heretical definition of 1970's Institutio Generalis, is incorrect and would invalidate the Mass.
This has nothing to do as with saying that Our Lord would have left His Church. This is incorrect: the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated and can be used freely and IS used, while the majority of Eastern - now also degenerating - Catholic liturgies have not yet been protestantized and thus are always valid.
Concerning the priestly ordination rite of 1968. The validity of that is questioned by sedevacantists, but Michael Davies sufficiently said it is valid, if done with proper intention, though all the new rites have defects, are protestantized, and if stripped from the essential prayer and intention are invalid. But never in se. They are valid in themselves.
But Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and a group of Roman theologians sincerely said in their "Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae" (Ottaviani Intervention), that the New Mass might be invalid, if the priest would take over the spirit and the intention of its authors. Did they think Christ's Church was defective or were they saying Christ left His Church?
They also said implicitly, that true Catholics would see themselves in front of the difficult dilemma, that they would have to choose the Old Mass and avoid the New Mass, because it "no longer wants to express the Catholic faith as defined infallibly by the Council of Trent, to which however Roman Catholic conscience is bound".
But as said, read this definition, written by Abbé Georges de Nantes in 1975, and still valid and correct: