The Tridentine Rite was only special insofar as the Church chose it, not that it was the only rite the Church could ever use and that using another was heresy or whatever.

That's true, but the aspect that you are missing is that the Tridentine rite is essentially the same as the other rites which are allowed by the Church (i.e. Benedictine, Coptic, Dominican, Eastern, etc, etc).  Even most of the numerous rites which the Tridentine rite replaced (through Quo Primum) were essentially the same.  (I say "most" because there were a few rites that had been corrupted and were scandalous; most rites were fine, sacramentally and liturgically, they had just lost the sense of uniformity which the Church requires in its prayers).

The new mass, however, is NOT essentially the same as the Tridentine mass or any other rite.  +Ottaviani makes this abundantly clear when he says that the theology of the new mass is a striking departure from the theology of Trent and that the liturgy is protestantized.  Yes, the pope is allowed to make non-essential changes to the liturgy's rubrics; he is NOT allowed to change essential prayers (i.e. like the consecration, the offertory prayers and much of the canon).  The pope is NOT allowed to change this because the mass is not the Church's to change; the mass is Christ's!  The Mass is Divine!

----

Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the validity of the Mass of Paul VI in the typical editions in Latin.  I don't think he encouraged attending it.

Stanley,
The validity of the mass is separate from it's theology.  A valid consecration does not equal a pleasing, reverent Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is MUCH MORE than just a valid consecration.  You keep arguing about the validity of the new mass's consecration, and you're not grasping the significance of the many, many other changes to its liturgy which are anti-catholic.

Popes cannot take power away from their successors.

You're correct! But the right to significantly change the Mass into a different rite has NEVER EXISTED. No Pope has ever had the right to devise AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Mass with 70% of the prayers removed.

No, this prohibition of pastors altering rites does not apply to the Pope.

Minor, relatively insignificant changes, as Pax Vobis has said. Every time a new Roman Missal was issued, the Pontiff would preface by citing Quo Primum and then justifying the changes he was making as necessary and practical because every Pope recognized the binding force of Pope St. Pius V's Bull.

If it's valid then it's valid and that's that. Calling a valid mass immoral renders you anathema according to Trent.
I don't attend Novus Ordo Masses at all, I go to the SSPX(no Resistance masses available).

What a paradox!

Forlorn, from what you've written, it seems as though you have no justifications for not attending the New Mass. Recognizing the Novus Ordo Missae as valid and licit, yet refusing to attend is ludicrous! What are your justifications for attending SSPX then? You believe it's valid, licit, and a legitimate act of the Catholic Church by a Roman Pontiff. By your own admission, you have no reason not to go to the New Mass.

In an interview with one of the Dimond brothers, prior to them falling into sedesim, Fr. Wathen does a marvelous job of explaining it....


Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.


Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?

Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.


Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.

Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.

Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.

It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.


Question: He allowed for incidental and minor changes to be made, but obviously he could probably never imagine….

Fr.That goes without saying, incidental changes could be made. Quo Primum states that only the pope could make such changes. The idea that anyone including the pope, could make a substantive change in the Mass, is so obvious that it is not stated.


Question: The Council of Trent Canon 6 says “if anyone says the Mass contains errors, therefore should be abrogated let them be anathema”. Would something like that hold any weight pertaining to what pope Paul VI did? In a way he was saying that it did contain errors therefore should be abrogated did he not?

Fr.I would not say that his changing the Rite of the Mass was a suggestion that there was fault in the old Mass, that canon simply states that the doctrine expressed by the prayers and the ritual of the traditional Mass are thoroughly Catholic, that everyone may have confidence that there is no doctrinal error expressed by this Rite. The matter of the new mass must be considered first of all why the new mass was introduced. Was it introduced because it was suggested there was some deficiency in the old mass, was it introduced for less cogent reasons? It was never suggested that there was some deficiency, it was suggested that there was room for improvement.  ……no sufficient reason was ever given, and no one has a sufficient reason. The only reason they have is that one pope may override the rules and the laws of another. This is an error.


Question: Now people will say Father, that it could be changed because this is simply a matter of discipline, that the pope could change it because it’s not a matter of strictly faith and morals he could not make an ex cathedra statement to define the Mass, therefore the pope has the justification to establish a new rite – that’s what people are saying and that’s why your wrong father.

Fr. People have been given the idea that whatever the pope has the authority to do he may morally do, we deny both that the pope has the authority to introduce a new mass and we insist that the introduction of a totally new Rite with a questionable theology, and that is putting it mildly, the introduction of a new Rite with a questionable theology is not only unlawful, that is, it goes clearly contrary to the established law, but it is immoral, independent of the law of which the pope is bound.

People have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it.

You're correct! But the right to significantly change the Mass into a different rite has NEVER EXISTED. No Pope has ever had the right to devise AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Mass with 70% of the prayers removed.

And who barred the Pope from doing so? The Church has many rites, and many more extinct ones. If no one had the authority to promulgate new rites, then there would be only one. In the past pre-Trent there were many different rites made that weren't even promulgated by Rome, like the Mozarabic and Gallican rites. As for massively overhauling the mass and the prayers said therein, Pope St. Gregory the Great made many large changes to the Roman rite, cutting out out many prayers and readings, and most notably altering the Eucharistic prayer. I reckon if similar changes were made today you'd call them illegal.

Minor, relatively insignificant changes, as Pax Vobis has said. Every time a new Roman Missal was issued, the Pontiff would preface by citing Quo Primum and then justifying the changes he was making as necessary and practical because every Pope recognized the binding force of Pope St. Pius V's Bull.

By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it

Note, it does not say nothing major, or nothing substantial. It says that nothing whatsoever may be changed. Therefore, if the command here applied to future Popes, all the minor changes made to the Missal would've been breaches of the aforementioned command.

That's true, but the aspect that you are missing is that the Tridentine rite is essentially the same as the other rites which are allowed by the Church (i.e. Benedictine, Coptic, Dominican, Eastern, etc, etc).  Even most of the numerous rites which the Tridentine rite replaced (through Quo Primum) were essentially the same.  (I say "most" because there were a few rites that had been corrupted and were scandalous; most rites were fine, sacramentally and liturgically, they had just lost the sense of uniformity which the Church requires in its prayers).

The new mass, however, is NOT essentially the same as the Tridentine mass or any other rite.  +Ottaviani makes this abundantly clear when he says that the theology of the new mass is a striking departure from the theology of Trent and that the liturgy is protestantized.  Yes, the pope is allowed to make non-essential changes to the liturgy's rubrics; he is NOT allowed to change essential prayers (i.e. like the consecration, the offertory prayers and much of the canon).  The pope is NOT allowed to change this because the mass is not the Church's to change; the mass is Christ's!  The Mass is Divine!

----
Stanley,
The validity of the mass is separate from it's theology.  A valid consecration does not equal a pleasing, reverent Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is MUCH MORE than just a valid consecration.  You keep arguing about the validity of the new mass's consecration, and you're not grasping the significance of the many, many other changes to its liturgy which are anti-catholic.

I don't see how the Byzantine Rite is in any way essentially the same as the Tridentine Rite, but nevertheless I cannot argue that the theology of the mass was completely altered and that the NO resembles Protestant masses.

However, what I don't understand is, how you can call the NO valid and yet also immoral. The above would suggest its immorality, it's altering the sacred Sacrifice to appease and resemble heretics. But if it's a valid mass, then why wouldn't Trent's Canons of the Sacrifice of the Mass apply? The canons were meant to apply to every rite in use by the Church, not just the Tridentine Rite that was being promulgated. I've heard you say things about the NO which would break Canons IV, VI, and VII if it were said about the Tridentine Mass. So if the New Rite is valid Mass of the Church, how is it possible for its canon to contain errors, for its ceremonies to be calls to impiety, or for the mass to be blasphemous?

So if the New Rite is valid Mass of the Church, how is it possible for its canon to contain errors, for its ceremonies to be calls to impiety, or for the mass to be blasphemous?

Because the validity of the consecration is one, minor (yet important) part of the overall Mass.  The consecration is ONE of the the THREE principle parts of the mass.  The mass is much more than just the canon.  A black mass can have a valid consecration - does that mean a black mass is automatically moral?

As for massively overhauling the mass and the prayers said therein, Pope St. Gregory the Great made many large changes to the Roman rite, cutting out out many prayers and readings, and most notably altering the Eucharistic prayer. I reckon if similar changes were made today you'd call them illegal.

First of all, Pope St Gregory lived post-early persecution era.  For 300 years, the Church was devastated by persecutions and could not openly worship or have large-scale organization.  Once the Church was able to operate in peace, you see Her, through the popes, making changes and updates that were heretofore, impossible.  The early Roman church, when it changed to latin, changed many prayers because the Eastern rites were more developed and had more consistency.  

Even wikipedia says that the essential prayers of the canon were NOT changed by Pope St Gregory, but only certain ones were changed:

With regard to the Roman Canon of the Mass, the prayers beginning Te igitur, Memento Domine and Quam oblationem were already in use, even if not with quite the same wording as now, by the year 400; the Communicantes, the Hanc igitur, and the post-consecration Memento etiam and Nobis quoque were added in the fifth century.

It is up to you to prove that the changes to the roman rite were essential changes and also were entirely new.  Common sense says that many of these changes had been used by clerics for centuries, but could not be made uniform for the whole latin church until the Church had survived the persecutions, when communication with the entire latin church was possible, predictable and productive.  No church historian worth his salt has ever postulated that Pope St Gregory invented a new liturgy, or that he added prayers to the canon which he wrote himself.  And no pope would be declared a saint who did so, for such actions would be scandalous.

Point taken. I suppose I should be asking, what makes a Mass a true Mass of the Church to which those Canons would apply?

Apostolic origin?

Paul VI never claimed the new mass was Tridentine or in any way related to Quo Primum.  Nor did he claim it was a revision of the 62 missal.  He clearly said that it was a new rite, produced because V2 asked for one.