I think that the requirement of sunday obligation outweights the absolute need of Latin mass over Novus Ordo mass.

One’s Sunday obligation is not fulfilled by attendance at a mass that has any (or all) of the following:
.
1. doubtful mass due to anti-catholic, Protestant, humanistic theology.
.
2.  A positively doubtful consecration, per the theologians, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.
.
3.  Said by a doubtful priest.
.
4.  Said by a V2 accepting heretic priest.
.
5.  An illicit mass which gravely violates Quo Primum.
.
6.  A mass which allows sacrilegious communion-in-the-hand, as well as multiple other moral scandals such as pervasive immodest dress, irreverent talking/acting and lack of prayerful silence.  
.

I have read alot of Church history and the docuмents of Vatican II and earlier councils and I think the precision needed in a council is not that extreme.

I think that the requirement of sunday obligation outweights the absolute need of Latin mass over Novus Ordo mass.

Obviously the council and what has happened sense is a disaster beyond words.

It seems to me that if you accept Vatican II as a Council of the Church, then logically you have to go along with the liberal interpretation of the docuмents that has been held by the overwhelming majority of the Church hierarchy. Either this or you must put yourself in the position where you say that these liberal interpretations are tolerable for a Catholic to hold, even though they directly contradict the Faith, but that you personally will interpret the Conciliar docuмents conservatively. I underlined "personally" because it indicates what I think to be the greatest problem of Vatican II: Subjectivism. Catholicism is an objective religion (and the only true one at that), not a subjective religion. If someone can choose to interpret the Catholic religion either conservatively or liberally accord to their mere whims and still be a Catholic, then it undermines the objective basis and teachings of our Faith that have been given to us by God. This point has been made by others, such as Bishop Williamson.
(By liberal interpretations, I mean things such as Nostra Aetatae being used to justify the Modernist Ecuмenism as seen in the infamous Assisi meetings)
Archbishop Lefebvre explains what I'm getting at far better in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_bkIlFU6YA&feature=youtu.be
From 0:00-1:43
[Note: this recording is from a conference in the US in which +ABL spoke in English, so the grammar is a bit choppy here and there]
"Some, they said, the Council is good, was good, and is good...but only the reforms, they are bad. But that is not true. Why? Because when from Rome came the reform, they say always that the reform they do in the name of the Council! In the name of the Council! It is evident that all [the] reforms came from the Council, and if the reform is bad [it] is impossible that the Council is good and all the reforms are bad. Because that is authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome! Rome said [that] 'In the name of the Declaration on Liturgy we [will] do [a] liturgical reform'. We can say, 'But that is not in the text of this declaration'. But, these men have authority to say that this is speaking from the Council. They know that! And I am sure that [it] is in the Council. Even [if] it is not explicitly in the Council, but it is in the spirit of the Council." - Arcbishop Lefebrve, Lecture in the United States (1976)