If you are explaining why some people come to the conclusion that Jesus is "more present in the Latin," then I agree that those are contributing factors. I hope you're not claming they are right.
You are correct that I was talking about the impression people have about the OF. As I hope everyone knows, the sacraments operate by the fact of their operation, and are not dependent on the personal holiness of the priest, and while any of the abuses mentioned are illicit, the mass is only invalid if the words of consecration are intentionally botched.
Interesting. I have noted modernist priests during high school and during those recent experimental phases of Church history in the past, changing the words to the mass. But I am not so learned as to the way it is supposed to be said to know if any of those times it went so far as to become invalid. The Church officials do have to draw a line over which priests should not cross, though and it makes sense to do so.
I am currently reading a book by Malachi Martin where he discusses the cases of several persons who went through exorcisms. The book lists a priest (not by name,) who felt himself becoming harrassed by spirits during the mass and he felt compelled to change the words of the mass to the point of changing the whole form. Eventually he was in a position where he went through an exorcism. (I have not read through what happens yet.) All of this to say simply that some persons who take lightly what is prayed and said in the mass, should not do so. Also just to say that certain habits we may take up could be dangerous. But I am by no means trying to hijack this thread into a whole new driection in any sense.