You are correct - Quo Primum did forbid any rites (under 200 years old) to be used other than the "new" one that he had codified. States the Quo Primum: "Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world." 

There is no doubt that Quo Primum decreed the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. And that it was to be applied "now and forever".

However the bull of one Pope can be superseded or modified by a future Pope. This is traditional Church teaching; a Sovereign Pontiff is not subject to the ruling of a previous Pope.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his Mediator Dei (58):"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." This was followed by (59): "The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circuмstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded."

We also have a precedent: St. Pius X changed the Divine Office and Breviary that St. Pius V had also fixed with same penalties.

Quo Primum was part of my journey into understanding what we had lost but judging from the above, Pope Paul VI was technically within his right to make modifications to the Tridentine Mass (so no heresy here) and at the same time, because of its ancient usage, the original Tridentine Mass could not be abrogated. Thus it is not hypocrisy but rather your lack of understanding in this matter. I do not claim to be an expert either however, there is enough there to prove that the issue is a lot more complex than you give it credit for.

…… The Mass of the Roman Rite, there is only one, Pius V said that there could never be but one, and he had the authority to impose this for all time.

If he did not have the authority to do so, even to the extent of binding all his successors, then this is to say that he, the pope, did not even know the limits of his own authority. This is to say that this pope attempted to do something which he had no authority to do.

And we say well then if he did not have that authority, then his authority was limited. We say that if his authority is limited, then all his successors authority is limited also.

We say yes, the authority of the pope is limited, but it is not limited to establishing the liturgy of the Mass for all time, [rather] it is limited to where a successor cannot discard this Mass because of a whimsy or a deviation in Catholic belief, and there has to be a deviation in Catholic belief on the part of pope Paul VI who would introduce such a mass  as what we have, the Novus Ordo Missae….

As Fr. Wathen explains....I think you will like to add this to your journey, it's a talk from 1974 given by Fr. Altenbach all about Quo Primum. Just for the record, he gave this talk about a decade before he became a sede bishop, he died about a year after he became a sede bishop. At any rate, what he says agrees with what Fr. Wathen states above.   

I think it is a lack of understanding on all our parts. I read through Pope Benedict's Motu Proprio and it states this:
"Art 1.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite.  The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage.  These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite." 

...and then in 1970, it was greatly revised by Pope Paul VI. Now, as we have established, a Pope has the power and authority to modify rites and liturgy. The Pope IS the the Holy Roman Church and thus what she has decreed she can change. Yes, Pope Paul the IV never abrogated Quo Premum, however what he did do is greatly modified this universal Roman Tridentine rite while maintaining its essentials.

Sorry, with all due respect to his office, I have no time for Fr. Hesse. He is a man who cannot make distinctions as I have already shown and is sowing much confusion. Tell me, Pax, what is his background? Why did he leave the Vatican? Whose authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest? What do you really know about him?

In short, find me a more trustworthy source of information.

Cardinal Ottaviani, a top theologian in the 60s, said —-
the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.


Paul6’s law didn’t not amend, change or revise QP.  He could’ve but he didn’t.  Therefore Quo Primum’s anathemas on new usages/liturgies still stands. 

Trads have been arguing this for 40 years.  Benedict finally confirmed it.  QP is the law of the Latin Church.  V2 rites are prohibited.

I see. What is his background then? What authority was he under? Did he practice as a priest?

I appreciate all the trouble you have gone to - I sincerely do - but after listening to his first talk that you posted I question his motives. The reason being is that he twists the most basic theological understanding to suit his narrative. And yet he supposedly holds a doctorate in theology and canon law:

From my earlier post: "...from the very opening of his talk he made an error in relation to the matter being used in Catholic Sacraments. He talks about wine always being used in the Holy Eucharist, he mentions water always being used in Baptism, and then he talks about Olive Oil always being used as a Holy Oil. He then proceeds to state that when Pope Paul VI gave permission (1972) - in cases of necessity - for clergy to use another plant based oil if they couldn't get olive-oil, he was rendering those Sacraments invalid. This is incorrect on a number of levels. Christ instituted water for baptism, and Christ instituted wine for the Eucharist. However, it was the Church that instituted olive-oil for Holy oils. This makes a difference and I will come back to this shortly. Now. Fr. Hesse goes on to state that the Council of Trent doctrinal docuмent on the Sacraments in general, passes an anathema on any pastor of the churches - and he claims" this includes the Pope - who changes the rites of the sacraments. He then applies this to Pope Paul VI for the changes he made to the sacraments and the Mass.

First of all, that the Pope is subjected to this decree, is Fr. Hesse's erroneous assumption. Because this assumption is negated by the following: "...the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognise 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." - Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei.

Pope Pius XII further supports this in Sacramentum Ordinis (4) "...that which the Church has established, she can also change and abrogate' meaning that what Christ has instituted she cannot change, but what the Church has instituted she can - such as making an exception, in a case of necessity, the type of Holy Oils used. Fr. Hesse failed to make this distinction from the beginning and ends up being led up the wrong path."

§ 1. The holy oils that are used in the administration of certain Sacraments must be blessed by the Bishop on the [Holy Thursday] immediately before; older [oils] shall not be used unless necessity urges.
§ 2. In case of an insufficient supply of blessed oil, the non-blessed oil of olives can be added, [and] even [added] again, though in an amount less than [was] the original.

The holy oils required in the administration of several of the Sacraments, must have been blessed by the bishop on the preceding Holy Thursday, nor are the old ones to be used except in case of necessity. When the holy oils are about to give out, other olive oil that has not been blessed may be added, even repeatedly, but always in smaller quantity than the
holy oils. (Canon 734.)

780. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction must be administered by the sacred anointings with properly blessed olive oil and pronouncing the words prescribed in the rituals approved by the Church. (Canon 937.)
788. The olive oil to be used in Extreme Unction must be blessed for that purpose by a bishop, or by a priest who has the
faculty for this blessing from the Holy See. (Canon 945.)

You agree that PPVI never abrogated QP, which means QP is (was) still the law of the Roman Liturgy. Being that's the case, what PPVI did was against the law, making the new rite at least illegal, which is to say the new mass is at least illicit. This is indisputable - per QP