I understand the sentiment to your statement, so please don't take this as an assault, but I see this all the time and it needs to be addressed.
People always quickly point out how "beautful" the Novus Ordo is when done "correctly", and point out that they are drawing crowds at these also- people looking for more traditional forms of worship.
The only problem with this is that the people are being deceived and are focusing on the accidents, or the externals. The Novus Ordo, done in Latin, English, or Swahili, was created in the 1960's to upset the order of the entire traditional system of belief, from the Mass to the Theology. People learned fast enough that what was once fixed and uncompromising, could now be questioned and replaced. It was a synthetic replacement for the authentic tradition of the Catholic Church.
I am not here questioning the validity. The new mass is valid (all other things being equal), but it is not a substitute for the traditional mass no matter how well it is "decorated". At it's core it is based on a new theology, new prayers, a new calendar, and an open license to adapt it constantly to "modern man". Such a thing can not be seen as an acceptable replacement for the rock which came before it.
Excellent! Well said!
I cannot agree with this statement concerning the Order of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
Vatican II, and the revised Mass for the Latin Rite resulting from it's documents did not create or intend to implement a new theology.
While dissident theologians, liturgists, et al, have taken advantage of societal conditions in the Church and introduced many illicit novelties to the Mass during the past 40 years to push their new theology, this is not what Vatican II intended. It certainly is not a "core" value of what the Holy Spirit intends. It goes without saying that many, many Bishops failed in their shepherding by allowing this to happen. It is the current reality in the Church by and large now and will have to be corrected. There are good signs that correction is in process and will occur. Bear in mind that the Council of Trent took several generations to be implemented properly.
I have no problem with the "Tridentine" Mass either - provided it is celebrated legitimately under proper authorization of the local Ordinary. I attended just such a Mass today!
To expand further on this idea, I would ask all who consider themselves to be "traditionalists", but attend illicit "Tridentine" Masses to consider this. Every liturgical celebration of the Holy Sacrifice offered anywhere in the world in any of the liturgical Rites of the Church, always has a special prayer in the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) for two individuals - The Pope, and the local Bishop in union with the Pope. It is under the authority of Christ through these two of His servants, successors of His Apostles, that the Holy Sacrifice is offered and celebrated. Where there is no Bishop there is no Church. This is true whether or not one likes or agrees with his/her Bishop.
My question is this. Not having ever attended a non-authorized "Tridentine" Mass, who exactly do they pray for at this point in the Mass? Who claims the authority under Christ for it's celebration?