Nope, I'm a Novus Ordo deacon.
But, your post indicates why Rome is so reluctant to give a universal Indult, and why it is reluctant to join up with an organization whose goal, if you read their bishops carefully, and listen to their advocates on Free Republic, is the suppression of the Novus Ordo.
If the SSPX were to follow the FSSP path, there would be no problem. But, as you know, the sect will not do that because it has no interest in cooperating with Novus Ordo bishops or a Novus Ordo Vatican.
That's why the Tridentine Rite solution is, IMO, the only thing that will allow any kind of reunion. As you can see, however, Fellay's not interested in a "reservation."
I am a Novus Ordo deacon???
I thought the Novus Ordo was the Roman rite of Mass of Paul VI. I thought it was blend and harmonization without much real change other than the language, of the Mass of Pope John XXIII? Now you are claiming and admitting they are two different rites? OK, good progress.
Deacon, if you don't like the Traditional Latin rite of Mass (as you know, "Tridentine" is a misnomer), then you don't have to attend. Let us just have both for equal access for about 40 years.
The Novus Ordo will not be suppressed because the SSPX and its adherents desire it to be so. But after about 40 years, there will be no young men interested in replacing the modernists and grey-hairds who sold their souls for the "spirit of Vatican II."
We have about a half dozen young men in our diocese discerning God's call to the priesthood in our Bible Belt diocese. All six are interested in saying the Traditional Latin Mass on at least as frequent of basis as the Novus Ordo. And our Bishop, reluctantly perhaps, is willing to make some compromises.
Either that, or the FSSP and the ICKSP and the Legion of Christ will be the only ones with priests left.
The TLM and NO are different forms of the same rite.
But, yeah, if a way could be found, I think the separate rite would be a reasonable solution. It would protect traditionalists.
The suppression of the Novus Ordo is necessary because it is a protestantizing Mass in direct opposition to Trent. That is to say, it is not a Catholic Mass. The two Masses are simply irreconcileable, each belonging to a different religion. Do you think the modernist bishops don't realize this? This is why they despise the traditional Mass and have always sought to suppress it. It was why Roman modernists persecuted Lefebvre in the first place. The old Mass represents the doctrines and theology of a Church they opposed and still oppose.