Unfortunately, there's no clear answer to whether a Pope can change that which Pope St. Pius V codified  Some argue that it's like a canonization, which can never be rolled back ... but others that it's purely disciplinary, and therefore can be changed.  I think it's somewhere in between.

I don't agree that the NOM is valid, but that too is disputed and there's no smoking gun argument until the Church intervenes.

Of course, what we're talking about is a "Pope" not simply making some changes but replacing this Mass that has its roots in the Apostolic rites and then having a committee write a new one that is nearly identical to a Prot service (Cranmer, Luther, etc.).  All of the actual Catholic Rites go back ultimately to the Apostles and then to SAINTS.  This one was pulled out of thin air by a committee of Modernists who might as well have been engaging in an act of creative writing, but with input from Prots, and the stated intention of the exercise was in fact to make it less offensive to Prots (i.e. remove anything unambiguously Catholic from it).  Fruits of Vatican II and the NOM are incredibly rotten, and therefore it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.  Both NOM and V2 have the fingerprints of the Church's enemies all over them, and it's clear that an enemy hath done this.  Bottom line, though, is that it's not licit because these men masquerading as popes from Roncalli onward have been illegitimate infiltrators bent on destroying the Church.

If your husband can't (or doesn't want to) recognize that the NOM is nearly identical to a Prot service while bearing little resemblance to the Tridentine Mass or even an Eastern Rite liturgy, there's little that can be done (apart from prayer, penance, and perhaps an exorcism ... to lift whatever diabolical curse those people at the retreat center programmed his mind with).  I would perhaps recommend Michael Davies' "Pope Paul's New Mass" (although I do not categorically endorse Davies).  But this might be a good place to start for someone who is in your husband's mental state.  Then I second Pax's recommendation of The Great Sacrilege, but your husband might take offense given where he's at.  So I might start with Davies and then Father Wathen.

Most Catholics become Traditional Catholics not on account of some deep theological analysis but through the simple application of their Catholic instincts that inform them that the NOM is simply not Catholic and that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.

You can then go into how this was foretold from the Great Apostasy predicted by St. Paul, to the visions of Katherine Emmerich, and those of Julie Marie Jahenny, and finally the message of Our Lady of Fatima in the third secret, which speaks of an apostasy in the Church "beginning at the top," or when Our Lady at LaSalette predicted that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.

I know Pax doesn't care for Taylor Marshall, but I think this here could be good for your husband to watch:

  How can it be "somewhere in between"?  This makes no sense.

Absolutely it does.  Same thing is said of the canonization of saints.  It's not dogmatic per se in that it doesn't entail revealed propositions, and yet it has a dogmatic / doctrinal aspect to it.  cf. St Thomas.  Same thing can be said of Quo Primum, where it's on the border between being doctrinal and purely disciplinary.  There's a doctrinal aspect to Quo Primum.  It is not purely disciplinary but has a very strong doctrinal aspect to it.  It's not in the same category as, say, changing the duration of the Communion fast.  I view it as being in the same category as a canonization ... infallible and irreversible.  I don't think it would preclude a future pope from introducing a variation of the Rite, or a new Rite, but I don't think it can be abrogated.  When a Pope decrees something to be true "in perpetuity", his intent is clearly not "until the next pope comes along and overturns it".

Marshall puts out "some" good things but we must be wary of liberalism.  And also wary of indultism, of which he is 100% a part of.

His indultism is enough for true Trads to steer clear.

Whole point here, in case you missed it, is that we're not talking about a Trad.  We're talking about someone who's slid into a full acceptance of Conciliarism and the NOM.  From that perspective, the approach of a Taylor Marshall might be more effective than something coming from a straight diehard Traditional Catholic (with the man in question here being very likely to reject it out of hand).

What are you facepalming?  I said there's no smoking gun proof of invalidity, and there isn't.

On the contrary, there's no "smoking gun" of validity, either.  Therefore, canon law tells us (under pain of mortal sin) to avoid doubtfully valid masses.

In particular, we can't know the truth with certainty until the Church rules on the matter.  But then with your R&R position, you can claim certainty not only without the authority of the Church but even AGAINST the Church's authority, so given your theology about the Church, your reaction is not surprising.

Your logic makes no sense.  You're the one who argues that all popes since John23 are anti-popes, therefore your argument should be that EVERY new mass is invalid, based on this alone.  If the V2 popes are anti-popes, then the new mass is certainly an anti-mass and invalid.  Every. single. one.


For you to argue otherwise is bipolar.

I believe the main stumbling block nearly all people have is the false idea that the pope has limitless authority. This is a formidable stumbling block that must be overcome. Until you can get your husband convinced that this idea is altogether wrong, it's not likely he will change his mind.

Consider the following text I transcribed below as explained by Fr. Wathen in the interview he did with pre-sede Michael Dimond in the video I posted below. It will do you and especially your husband much good to listen to the whole interview as this whole issue is explained very clearly, and relatively, very briefly....


"People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.

People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope is not only not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it."

[...]

1) "As regards the Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pope St. Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.

2) If he did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, then this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.

3) And we say well then if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited.

4) We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.

5) We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time.

6) Rather, it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a wish, whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief.

7) And there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of Pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae."

So recently i wrote about my husband going on the NO retreat and he came back saying the NO is valid.
I told him yes it is valid, but it is not licit because of pope pius v codifying the mass.
Now i have tried having him watch a video from dr taylor marshall where he speaks of the lies about the novus ordo and the early church. (because this is another thing he has been telling me...that the church allowed the faithful to take communion in the hand and that the NO is more like the early church).
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone...he has stated that basically pope pius v wrote that for everyone, but that a pope has the authority to change the mass. therefore it is licit.
i don't know enough to say that he is wrong...maybe someone here knows if this is true or not.
I still believe that even if that's true, the way it was changed was for the destruction of the mass and the church...as we know how and why VII took place. Not to mention the fruits we have seen since.
He literally wants to take the children to the NO and i said that is going to cause confusion for them...where does obedience have its limits? as a wife wanting peace, but not wanting to attend the mass... on my retreat that i went to in obedience i had a very different experience...it confirmed to me the NO was NOT where we should be...it was rather sad to be honest.
Don't want to make this any longer...so any answers would be appreciated.

What a terrible cross to have to bear... 
 
To have your husband trying to pressure you and use obedience against you...

But also what a blessing to have been given the grace to understand that the novus ordo is bad still amidst the terrible pressures... 

God must truly love you.  

I know this is going to sound terrible but from what you have said before and now it seems that your husband isn't really going to respond to any arguing you might come up with.  

I think your husband probably knows all the answers or has the ability to know them.  He is just in denial.  He is tired of fighting the good fight and wants an easy way out.

It is not going be easy, and your life for a time will likely be a constant sorrow.  Take up Saint Monica and Saint Monica as your patrons.  You must pick up this cross and silently bear it and pray constantly for your husband and family.  When your husband is eventually moved by your sweetness, constant prayers and the grace of God he will hopefully come back to you and discuss these matters with a more open mind as did the husbands of Saint Monica and Saint Rita.  And then no argument will be needed as he will have an open heart and mind.

As for making concessions...  Do nothing that you believe would displease God.  I would suggest that you make the motto of Saint Joan of Arc your own "Dieu premier servi" (God first served).  Staying firm and persevering patiently in standing up against novus ordo and putting God first but always remain respectful towards your husband is the key to his "re-conversion".  Know that it is hard for any husband to be hardened long against a devout, loving and patient wife who always puts God first.

Praying for you!  And please know that we will always be here for you amidst these trying times. Please do keep us posted.