Is the New Mass objectively displeasing to God?

From a traditionalist but anti-SSPX site:

3. Is the New Mass objectively displeasing to God in itself?

Every time a priest says the New Mass in the vernacular translations (like English), he is telling a lie.

Let us consider the words spoken by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (26:27-28) and that of St. Mark (14:23-24) both say that Jesus said that His Blood would be shed "for many," whereas the Consecration of the New Mass says that Jesus said that it would be shed "for all men." Now either the New Mass is right and the gospels are wrong, or the New Mass is wrong and the gospels are right. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is free from error and hence we know that Jesus really did say "for many" at the Last Supper, and thus the text of the Consecration of the New Mass is wrong, even telling us a lie that Jesus said something at the Last Supper that He didn't say. These words are summarized in the table below.

The words of Jesus according to the Gospels and according to the New Mass

	According to the Gospel of St. Matthew	According to the Gospel of St. Mark	According to the New Mass
The Words of Jesus	And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: "Drink ye all of this. For this is My Blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins."	And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And He said to them: "This is My Blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many."	He gave the cup to His Disciples and said: "This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."
Did Jesus really say these words?	Yes.	Yes.	No.

It is always objectively bad to tell a lie, and thus the New Mass in English is always an objectively bad act in itself. And, as St. Thomas teaches, if anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious [S.T. II-II.93.1]. The telling of lies in sacred matters was also condemned by God, who spoke through the prophet "thou shalt not live, because thou hast spoken a lie in the name of the Lord" (Zach. 13:3), and it is also contrary to the command of Jesus who said that all must worship God in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:23-24). And further, as St. Thomas comments, a worship that contains falsehood is inconsistent with a salutary (and hence pleasing) calling upon God [S.T. II-II.93.1 ad 1].

The New Mass also contains much ambiguity. For example, the phrase "for all men" is ambiguous, as it could mean:

a) that Christ's Blood was shed intentionally for all men, so that all men may potentially benefit from it, but only many will actually go to heaven; this is the Catholic interpretation, or
b) that Christ's blood was shed efficaciously for all men, so that all men will actually benefit from it and everyone will go to heaven; this is the false interpretation.

The Traditional Mass carefully avoided any ambiguity. The ambiguity of the New Mass is also objectively bad since it has been condemned by God: "the double tongued is accursed" (Ecclus. 28:15); God hates "a mouth with a double tongue" (Prov. 8:13); and Jesus said "let your speech be yes, yes: no, no. And that which is over and above is of evil" (Mt. 5:37).