Compare the 1964 Missal to that of 1962. The only difference of any substance is the allowance of the vernacular in lieu of any Latin for certain readings and prayers. The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular. It was however, the same words. And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses. There is certainly nothing special about the Tridentine Missal that protects it from abuses like that.
I have a copy right here in front of me, and the difference from the traditional Latin Mass is night and day. It entirely incorporates the spirit of Vatican II and the New Mass.
The 1964 Missal is universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 Missal, the only difference being the allowing of the vernacular.
Your stance of being a traditionalist at heart but just loyal to Rome is betrayed when you make statements like this. Rather than being "universally acknowledged to be the same as the 1570 missal," the reality is that not a single traditionalist on the face of the Earth is using the 1964 version of the Mass. Nor would they. It is universally execrated, by traditionalists as a betrayal of the traditional Latin Mass, and by liturgical revolutionaries as not revolutionary enough.
And that was the Missal used in the first Clown Masses.
Thank you for admitting that it was never the traditional Latin Mass that ever allowed even "the first Clown Mass," but rather the post-Vatican II 1964 Missal which first allowed sacrilege and heterodoxy to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.