Please opinions, I want to make sure that my points are well put, and are in no way worded in an argumentative format, but instead mainly that of a question.

"For quite a while now I’ve accepted the equal validity of the EF and OF (along with my sympathies towards the SSPX, and far greater preference for the later). In cases when there was no Tridentine Mass, or due to scheduling I was unable to attend, I just went to Novus Ordo. However now I feel my conscience torn over the matter, after reading the canons from the Council of Trent and Quo Primum I feel unable to see the Novus Ordo as the true Mass of the Roman Church. Before I continue, I want to be very clear; I in no way seek to argue, instigate, or in any way insult others, including those who attend the NO. My only intention is to share my opinion on this matter and the reasons I am unable to attend the Novus Ordo, if it appears otherwise I apologise deeply. If this intent breaks forum rules, please notify me.

From the beginnings of the Church, we have always valued the repository of tradition within Catholicism which has developed organically from the day of the Apostles. One of the main reasons being that tradition is one of the great safeguards of the Faith, and to meddle with tradition is to endanger the Faith or (to be more specific) how people believe; as following by the principal Lex orandi, lex credenda. It is for this reason, that any tampering with the traditions of the Church has always been met with the sharpest responses ex;

Those therefore who after the manner of wicked heretics dare to set aside Ecclesiastical Traditions,
and to invent any kind of novelty, or to reject any of those things entrusted to the Church,
or who wrongfully and outrageously devise the destruction of any of those Traditions
enshrined in the Catholic Church, are to be punished thus:

IF THEY ARE BISHOPS, WE ORDER THEM TO BE DEPOSED;
BUT IF THEY ARE MONKS OR LAY PERSONS, WE COMMAND
THEM TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY."

-Second Council of Nicaea 787 A.D.
 

I know that the circuмstances during the Second council of Nicaea were different than those of the Church today, and to say that this previous statement automatically applies to the new liturgy (or any change in the liturgy) would be jumping the mark, and would be a judgement that I simply am not qualified to make. However there are later (infallible and dogmatic) statements from Pope’s which seem to reference this quite clearly. I’ll start with the Council of Trent as this is when the rubrics for the Roman rite Mass were formalised.

From the council itself two major Canons come to mind: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Session 7, CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Session 22 CANON VII: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."

In the first Canon I feel the point is fairly straight forward, in that the Mass of Paul VI has an entirely different rubric than the Tridentine Mass, the formula for the mass has been changed in nearly every aspect. The second canon I listed because I believe the intent behind creating the formula for the New Mass (correct me if I’m wrong) was to “remove even the shadow of a stumbling block from the path of our separated brethren”. Even after these dogmatic canons (which are infallible) Pope St. Pius V ended the council with the Apsotolic Constitution (again infallible?) Quo Primum, in this docuмent it states;

“…it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us… saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over two hundred years ago…  We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered there in.”

The key word in this being “forever”, not until the world appears to need a new Mass, or one believes it would strengthen piety or aid in conversions but “forever” as in until the end of time. I do not see how the Mass of Paul VI could be considered anything besides one of the other formulas referenced in Quo Primum. This is something which troubles me greatly, I have researched in depth, and prayed over and this is the conclusion I have reached. If I am wrong, or in any way mistaken about anything I have mentioned in this post, please tell me how and why.

Quote from: Canuk the Lionheart

Please opinions, I want to make sure that my points are well put, and are in no way worded in an argumentative format, but instead mainly that of a question.

Me thinks you failed here. CAFers will not see this as a question IMO.

Remember NOers love everyone and strive to embrace and welcome heathens, Jєωs, prots etc - but anything that has to do with tradition opposes the NO and it's mass and is therefore immediately condemned as being evil, misguided, stubborn, heretical, apostate, disobedient, schismatic and whatever other derogatory words you might care to insert.

You and your alterior [ulteriour] motives! (Thats how the most modern NOers often see it anyway.)

It is as you posted, they believe the way they do becaue of how they pray. Regardless of whose fault it is, that is just how it is.

Don't waste your time doing battle in their camp - IMO.  

Should we stop pointing out the inherent inconsistencies of their arguments and positions, or should we allow people to just figure it out themselves?

I think that as people gradually come to these conclusions on their own, that this should further increase the ranks of traditionalism, that is, people asking for traditional rites and practices, even parishes completely devoted to all of the Sacraments given according to the Immemorial Liturgy

Points very well taken, even if I actually do post this or something similar I don't know how long it would stay up, or if I'd be banned. Seriously I was suspended for about a month (forget exactly how long) and received infractions for using the dirty "h word".

Popes cannot legislate on a disciplinary matter so as to bind their successors.  I understand that St. Pius V said that no one could ever change the liturgy, but it seems to me that he had no canonical right to say that.  

Also, as long as the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated (Which I think all of us of every stripe here would agree that it wasn't) I don't think it violates Quo Primum to develop an additional rite.

Well it is technically possible for different liturgies to exist within the same rite of the Church -think of the Divine Liturgies of St. John C. and St. Basil, or how certain religious orders have their own liturgies with minor changes yet the same formula- I cannot see how this would apply to the N.O. The Council of Trent banned all liturgies in the Latin rite (only?) which were different from the missal promulgated by the Council. The only exceptions to this were the similar rites which had existed for 200+ years before the Council (such as the Sarum and Ambrosian rites). It says very clearly “it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us”. The N.O. is meant to be the “New Mass” and yet it clearly has a completely different formula for Mass than the Tridentine Mass; thus Quo Primum  has definitely been violated.