CathInfo.com

The new mass can be valid, it also cannot be.  Depends on the priest, and depends on the canon prayers used.  But validity does equal legal.
.
Rome has never said the new mass is legal to attend/say.  It has only said it legally exists.  You might say this is a technicality, but the pharisees ruled the world through technicalities when Christ was alive.  And the devil rules the world now through technicalities through his many satanic lawyers.

Any mass Rome promulgates is legal to attend by virtue of that very fact. And the priests were ordered to say it, see the quote at the end of this post.

It has also said that QP is still in force, which disallows any other missal to be used.  Paul VI's law only created a missal; it does not give anyone permission to use it.  Ergo, QP supercedes Paul VI's law because QP is specific in its rules, while Paul VI's law is general and non-specific.  The law with more clarity always takes precedent.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Benedict XVI only said John XXIII's missal was never abrogated, and more specifically never abrogated as an extraordinary form. If he said more specifically that Quo Primum wasn't abrogated, please link me the quote, I honestly haven't seen it. Anyway, the reason I think that distinction is important is because saying "it was never abrogated, as an extraordinary form" just means that the rite, in its new and updated state, still exists and is within use in the Church. But that does not necessarily confirm that all the details of Quo Primum remained in place, or that the rite is still the ordinary form.

No, but it prohibits the use of any new rites, it prohibits any changes to the QP rite, and any pressure/command to use a new rite or an altered QP rite.

Such commands were directed at the clergy, I don't think one pope can limit the authority of future popes. For example, QP was altered many times by popes - even if they were only minor changes it still proves that QP's strict order to not alter the rite does not apply to them.

Agree.  And those rites which were 200 years old at the time of 1500s were very, VERY similar to the Tridentine rite (i.e. Benedictine and Dominican rites are 99% the same, save for the addition of St Benedict and St Dominic in certain prayers and other non-essential rubrics).

There were also for example the Byzantine and Mozarabic rites, which are quite different(although not as much as the NO, to be fair).

Yes, he created a new missal, since QP did not forbid this (technically).  No, you cannot use it, because it violates QP.  Nowhere in Paul VI's law does he:
1.  Order anyone to use/attend the new mass
2.  Place a penalty for ignoring the new mass
3.  Specifically allow anyone to use this missal.
.
All Paul VI's constitution says is: "Here is my new missal, which I am creating by this new law.  Here are the changes in the new missal.  I wish this law go into effect on the 1st Sunday of Advent."  All his law does is create a new missal.  The use of it violates QP.

Er, he kind of did. He ordered that it be used and he ordered it go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent that year.

In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

There's no specific penalty specified that I can see, but ignoring the missal would still be disobedience for priests, so the penalty is sort of built-in in that respect.

If the entire hierarchy can apostasise and lead the faithful to Hell without it being considered a defection, then the principle of indefectibility would be entirely meaningless. You won't find any theologian or authority suggesting such rot as the true hierarchy could ever lead souls to Hell.

So the entire hierarchy defects, so what, they are not the Church.

 I can't comment on what graces I've been given, only God knows. If the Trad position is correct, then yes NOers must be ignoring some of God's graces, as if one corresponds to all of God's graces He would never leave them wallow in error. But whether they are rejecting graces or not, it does not change the fact that the hierarchy is guiding them to Hell. Trads ignore the hierarchy for exactly this reason. The fact that man must listen to the hierarchy doesn't lessen the significance of what they are doing. It's like if a father teaches his child to sin, the child has free will to reject his father's errors, but that doesn't absolve the father of his guilt.

Yes, the hierarchy is leading them to where they want to go. They choose to follow because they rejected the very same graces you did not reject, the same graces you corresponded to and are corresponding with, they want nothing to do with, they're content to sin - they choose to reject grace and follow the hierarchy, each and every one of them. You are not unique here, we all, every last one of us at some point(s) in life has to make the same choice. So while you place all the blame on the pope and hierarchy, you ignore the reality that the people being led into the pit, chose to be led into the pit and ultimately in eternity, will not be able to blame anyone except themselves.

Why is it that you even need a pope when you ignore him and everything he does anyway?

It's honestly baffling to me that you can agree that the hierarchy are leading souls to Hell and yet you don't think that poses any issue whatsoever with indefectibility. From the Catholic Encyclopedia once more:

I don't need a pope like that, no one does. Our duty before God is to pray every day for the pope, that is what Catholics must do. Whether a holy pope or a conciliar pope, if he never teaches anything at all during his entire reign, or if he teaches heresies every time he teaches, it is the same difference - but until or unless he defends or teaches something we need to know, no one needs a pope to get to heaven.

Sedevacantism would be a defection by loss of Apostolic hierarchy. R&R have a hierarchy, but one that is corrupted in faith and morals and has ceased to be a school of holiness as it teaches heresy and sin instead of true dogma, as well as having an invalid and blasphemous mass replace the true mass in 99% of parishes. Even their pope was ordained in a false rite.

So it's clear that sedevacantism cannot explain the Crisis, but neither can R&R as that position still violates the principle of indefectibility.

But you just said what is - namely, that the hierarchy is corrupt, including the popes. There isn't anything to explain about that - they are not the Church. We can say as you just said about the hierarchy, we can say by all accounts, they have defected from the faith, defected from the Church and are bunch of scandalous bastards, but we cannot say the Church has defected because that is an impossibility.

If in fact the Church has defected or ever does defect, then by what means do we have to get to heaven? None. Which is to say if the Church defects, salvation is absolutely unattainable. 

Could it be possible that the 5th Column Jews have reign.  What they have always wanted since Christ's death?  Sure!  It is of the Syngoge of Satan!  Can a pope, whoever, a Jew be a pope?  No!  Proof?  The New Order Mess! That is their creation.  Their Manifest/outward fruits.  You will know them(enemy) by their fruits.