CathInfo.com

I'm guessing Struthio received a "thumbs down" because he posted an uncomfortable truth and many people simply cannot abide such truths.  The G.I.R.M. was condemned at Trent hundreds of years before its publication and those who accept it have already been anathemtized.

I am not Struthio's down-thumber, nor do I know what annoyed the person who is. Even so, the relationship between Trent's canon 9 and para 32 of GIRM appears to be misunderstood, if not by Struthio himself in his comment then surely by others who read more into it than is there.

That is to say, there is no ipso facto contradiction between the two citations. What is anathematized is the condemnation of the low tone, not its outright but condemnation-free replacement by the interminable yackety-yack that is as conceptually central to the New Order of Mass as it is alien to the True Mass. Indeed, I have no doubt that the lawyerly authors of GIRM knew precisely what objections might be raised and who might raise them as they went methodically about the business of making a revolution while pretending that they were doing no such thing.

You might well think (I certainly do) that in actual practice this distinction is an exercise in hair-splitting. Yet splitting hairs is a critical part of what laws and lawyers do as a matter of course. As this is a situation that will outlive us all, learning how to live with it—and how to prosper from it when circuмstances permit—is the best of several unattractive alternatives.

For the record, I think the new mass is valid but not licit—in other words,I agree with the original and long-held position of the SSPX.

I agree that the NOM is the abomination of desolation.  I also believe that the whore of Babylon is none other than the Conciliar Church.

The Novus Ordo not using a low tone is NOT a condemnation of the Tridentine Rite for using one

Whether or not what you say is true, the GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL, INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI saying that "the nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice" is such a condemnation.

Consequently, to not speak them "in a loud and clear voice" is to act against the nature of these texts. Now, God has a divine right to be worshipped by men in the way he asked for. The General Instruction calls the praxis of all times at least grave liturgical abuse. And on the other hand, as TKGS has pointed out, the General Instruction was condemned several hundred years before the ink was wasted.