The bottom line is this:  if it's ok to attend the N.O. (even in remote circuмstances) then why are we traditionalists?

3 things to examine on the N.O.  Validity, Legality, Morality.  Forget the validity question.  It's doubtful if it's valid, but let's assume it is.  

Is it moral?  What's it's purpose?  I'd argue that communion in the hand being the sacrilege that it is, makes this "mass" as a whole an abomination and a blasphemous sacrilege, even if one is just "sitting there".  Can I just "sit there" and watch a black mass?  Can I just be "in the room" at a "gentleman's club" and not sin?  I don't think so.  

Finally, let me remind you all that when Cardinal Ottaviani wrote his "intervention" (at the request of + Lefebvre) he condemned it in it's "theologically purest" form.

Finally, is it legal?  Either Quo Primum is the law or it isn't.  There's no question that Benedict firmly stated that Quo Primum is legally in effect, with the 1962 missal as a lawful revision.  No one should question this.  Benedict also said that Paul VI's missal is NOT a revision of Quo Primum but a NEW missal.  Ergo, it is a parallel missal.

But Quo Primum does NOT ALLOW parallel missals, under pain of sin.  I quote:  

"...and I order them in virtue of holy obedience to say or sing the Mass according to the rite and manner I am presenting currently, ...  And you must not, when celebrating Mass, introduce any ceremonies or recite any other prayers, except those contained in my Missal."

The point is that the N.O. was legally created and promulgated.  But no one has to use it, no one is forced to use it, and no one CAN use it, under pain of sin.  This is the true diabolical genius of the N.O.!  A missal was created, legally, but it means nothing!  A parallel missal, with no purpose other than to confuse, coerce and destroy!

For 40 years, no traditionalist could make this argument because the question of the legal status of Quo Primum was in "limbo".  But this is no longer!  For, as Benedict clarified in his "motu" (which is a legal docuмent of the Church), Quo Primum is the valid law of the Church.  And it FORBIDS any other missal from being said, or it's a SIN OF DISOBEDIENCE AGAINST THE POPE.  

That's why I say that who or who isn't the current pope (if there is one) DOESN'T MATTER.  What matters is the CURRENT LAW IN FORCE.  And the current law FORBIDS the N.O. under pain of sin.  

For this pewsitter it was simply a matter of no longer recognising what was happening when I attended.

The scene had changed>no tabernacle>altar turned round>priest turning his back on the tabernacles that still remained until removed.

The language changed.
The Words of the Mass changed.
The Priest changed - sitting back when lay men or women spoke or read from the lowered pulpit.
The Words at the Consecration changed (died for all; My Body which was given up for you)
Holy Communion changed Lay men or women giving out Holy Communion instead of the Priest.   Receiving the Host standing and in the hands.
The Congregation changed - greeting one another during the mass; in dress.

Conclusion:  I no longer knew what was going on.  I HAD ALWAYS KNOWN SINCE CHILDHOOD WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHEN ASSISTING AT MASS>IF I didn't know then I had nothing to believe >No Mass>all vanished including me.

However, Bishop williamson did say that it was ok to attend the Novus Ordo once in a while.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bp-Williamson-says-Novus-Ordo-Mass-OK-sometimes

Papal Supremacy,

Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei teaches: "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."

As spoken by the pope who started this debacle of liturgical "modifications"
How ironic is that?

It is foolish to assert that the Pope can be bound by his predecessors in discipline, which is what you are saying above.

The Holy Mass is not solely an act of discipline,it touches upon the core of the Faith, upon that which must be believed to be saved. So, he is not free to do whatever he wants with it. Trent confirms this.

We are forbidden from going to the NO not because it is against Quo Primum but because it is not a Catholic rite, as evidenced by its many defects and omissions.

It is obviously not Catholic, and it was imposed directly in contravention of Quo Primum. It therefore is forbidden for both reasons.

A validly ordained priest makes the consecration take place.  New Order does not make men into priest, only a bystander.

In practical life, yes, Paul VI's missal exists and priests say it and people attend it.  It IS a rite of the Church, as things stand today.

You obviously either don't know what you're talking about, or you are not a true Traditionalist, because otherwise you would not have said that the NO rite is a rite of the Church. If it is a rite of the Church, then it means that it was truly promulgated, and if it was truly promulgated then it cannot be harmful, defective, or evil, because it would have been protected by the Church's infallibility, just like all of Her other rites (read about secondary, or indirect, objects of infallibility). Also, if it was truly promulgated, then it cannot be illegal, as you claim. How could it have no legal standing if it was legally promulgated, as you said before??!
You statements are self-contradictory.

For a reply to the rest of your comment read my reply to J.Paul above.

Hi PapalSupremacy,

You make some good points and I apologize if my language is not perfect.  I'm just a layman; I'm not a theologian nor a lawyer.  However, let me clarify a few things, concerning your points.

1.  When I say "rite" I mean the same thing as "missal".  The N.O. is both a new rite and a new missal.

2.  When dealing with the modernists, we must change our point of view and look at things differently.  We are dealing with revolutionaries who are seeking to destroy.  We are at war, in a sense.  It is a battle of Faith and a battle of truth.  Much like a 5 yr old child, the revolutionaries are always seeking the answer to the question:  "What can I get away with?"

3.  You said:  "but according to the teaching of the Church he is able to modify the existing rites of the sacraments and promulgate new rites. That is what Paul VI attempted to do."

The facts show that Paul VI did NOT attempt to modify the existing rites.  He is ABLE TO MODIFY the existing rites, but he did not attempt to do so.  He did create a new rite/missal.  This is a big difference.

4.  You said:  "If Paul VI was the Pope, then he could not have been bound by Quo Primum (just as St. Pius X was not bound by it or his revision of the Missal would have been illegal) and he had the power to impose a new rite, even without actually abrogating the old one, but leaving them as parallel rites."

First, Pius X was bound by Quo Primum until he legally revised it, and in his revision, legally pronounced that he was revising it.  The point is, Church law works like any other law profession.  Law A exists.  If you want to change it, you have to say you're going to change it and then follow the proper procedures.

Second, yes, I agree, Paul VI has the power to impose a new rite/missal, which he did.  However, he did not bind or permit anyone to use it.  He created a new missal and said "Here you go!  Look at my new shiny missal.  Vatican II said we should have a new one, so I made one.  I wish that this missal become law on the first Sunday of Advent."

5.  You said:  "How could it have no legal standing if it was legally promulgated, as you said before??!"

Being that he did not specifically revise the 1962 missal, nor did he revoke Quo Primum, this means that NO ONE CAN USE IT, legally.  And that's the great genius of it!  Everyone assumed that if a pope created a new missal, that they had to use it.  Everyone assumed that Quo Primum was "old news".  Everyone assumed that Quo Primum forbids creating a new missal, but it doesn't.

I'm bad at analogies but here goes one:  Imagine you're at your friends house for fishy fry dinner, on a friday.  Now, you, being a good catholic and knowing your friend is a good catholic, you both normally do not eat meat on fridays, as is church law.  However, once dinner is ready, the host brings out 2 plates for each person sitting at the table.  One plate is full of delicious fried fish.  On the other plate is a big, juicy fully dressed steak burger.  Of course, you are not going to eat the steak burger and you choose fish, but he gave you the option to eat each one.  

Was this very catholic of your friend?  No.  Did it violate Church law?  No.  Church law doesn't say you can't cook burgers on friday.  It doesn't say you can't buy meat on friday.  All it says is, you can't EAT meat on friday.  Was this a "catholic, moral" thing to do, to tempt you with meat?  Obviously, not.

The same with the new mass.  Church law/Quo Primum never said a new rite couldn't be created.  It never said that a parallel rite couldn't be issued by the pope.  All it said was, you can't SAY or ATTEND any rite/missal other than the approved one.  The N.O. is an invitation, a temptation to sin.  That is the devilish genius behind it.

We are now dealing with the aftermath of it's genius and diabolical mayhem.  Those Catholics in the 60s and 70s were FULLY AWARE that they were eating the steak burger.  They didn't care.  They WANTED the changes.  No one twisted their arms.  I've talked to plenty of people from that generation.  They knew/know what they were/are doing.

And the revolutionaries, much like a 5 yr old, studied the law and knew what it did and didn't say.  They offered a temptation, they offered confusion, they offered a new religion and most fell.

 

4.  You said:  "If Paul VI was the Pope, then he could not have been bound by Quo Primum (just as St. Pius X was not bound by it or his revision of the Missal would have been illegal) and he had the power to impose a new rite, even without actually abrogating the old one, but leaving them as parallel rites."

First, Pius X was bound by Quo Primum until he legally revised it, and in his revision, legally pronounced that he was revising it.  The point is, Church law works like any other law profession.  Law A exists.  If you want to change it, you have to say you're going to change it and then follow the proper procedures.

Second, yes, I agree, Paul VI has the power to impose a new rite/missal, which he did.  However, he did not bind or permit anyone to use it.  He created a new missal and said "Here you go!  Look at my new shiny missal.  Vatican II said we should have a new one, so I made one.  I wish that this missal become law on the first Sunday of Advent."

Good post.

One correction though - Pope Pius X was not bound by Quo Primum.

SSPX

Here one principle stands out: "Par in parem potestatem non habet": "Equals have no power over each other." No one, therefore, can constrain his equals. This is particularly true of the supreme power. This is essentially the same power exercised through its different holders. It is necessary to give the most careful consideration to the full import of this principle. If a pope (to speak only of the highest religious authority) has the power to loose what another pope by the same power has bound, then he should use this right only for the gravest possible reasons: reasons which would have prompted his predecessor to revoke his own law. Otherwise, the essence of supreme authority is itself eroded by successive contradictory commands.

I remember hearing a recording explaining that the reason for the strong wording of Quo Primum was because PPV sought to bind, if possible, all future popes, even though he knew better, he did what he could to try to bind even all the future popes.