A law is a law.  Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force.  Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.

Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial.  The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.

 

Says Pax Vobis.  Not Pope Paul VI and all his successors.

Ask and ye shall receive...


We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)

and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)

to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)

and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal.  All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).

Interestingly, none of this requires attendance under pain of mortal sin.

The Pope may change a law with a new law replacing or contradicting it.

Yes, it's possible, but Pope Benedict said that's not what happened.  Secondly, Paul VI's new law is not required under pain of sin, so his law has no binding authority.  Quo Primum is binding, under pain of sin, so it's authority outweighs Paul VI's non-authority.

Quo Primum was not a change of the previous laws regarding Mass, in case you didn't notice, but a new one itself just as Paul's was.

Quo Primum did not make a "brand new" missal, but simply took all the various rites (which were essentially the same) which had existed since Apostolic times and made the mass uniform.  Anything which Pope St Pius V discarded was non-essential.
Paul VI's missal made substantial changes, most notably to the consecration.  And since the consecration is essential and from Christ directly, these changes are substantial, illegal and immoral.

Says who?  According to the "pope" of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo IS CATHOLIC.  The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.

As trads, we make private judgments ALL.THE.TIME.  That's why it's silly for one group to wag their fingers at another group for making a different private judgment that they think is wrong.
 
To be clear, I totally agree with you about the NO not being Catholic, so I'm not sure why you're saying "you've been told this a number of times now".

Do you need a doctor to tell you not to swallow a cyanide capsule, or can you make that decision yourself?

Also, Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum preemptively made the Novus Ordo illicit, therefore, based on that reality, alone, there should be no confusion about whether or not a Catholic should go to the counterfeit mass of Paul VI. Catholics are required NOT to go to it.

This is not a matter of a Catholic arbitrarily making decisions about a grave matter concerning the Church.

The same man that never declared the Paul VI mass sinful and illegal. 

When Benedict XVI declared that Quo Primum was never revoked and still in force, he confirmed the above, even though you are too dense (and stubborn) to admit the logical consequences of this reality.

And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.

We all believe in the 10 commandments, yet we continue to violate them.  One's actions are separate from the Truth.

So what?  Nice of him to share his opinion on the matter.  After all, that's all that Popes do when they're not teaching infallibly.

But his opinion in this matter works for those who wish to believe that Paul VI, an undoubtedly true pope of the Catholic Church according to them, promulgated a sinful and illegal liturgy in the name of the Catholic Church.


It also allows them to claim that they haven't used their own private judgment in a grave ecclesiastical matter.