@Percy Franklin Thank you for the reasonable response. Personally, I prefer just about everything pre-twentieth century;, philosophy, theology, liturgy etc.I am likely the most "traditional" guy on GTV. But, as with the Saints, I disdain the rebellion of private judgment, which, from the Greek revolt to Luther and forward, has split the Roman Catholic Church into many thousands of schismatic sects. This division is diabolic(the root for the word devil is "to divide") and, yes, this I disdain.

@Ivan Tomas You did not answer my question Ivan. Which revised Missal (after 1570) DID NOT violate Quo Primum, which clearly states that the 1570 Missal was never to be changed?

" Which of the many subsequent revisions of the 1570 Quo Primum Missal DID NOT violate "in perpetuity?"
---
All of them. It is visible when you read these documents (not fables of the post-conciliar revolution about them). For example Clement VIII in Cum Sanctissimum wrote:
"... Pope Pius V of happy memory, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, took action to bring the Roman Missal into conformity with an ancient and purer model and to publish it in Rome. Although he very seriously forbade, under many penalties, that nothing should be added to it or removed from it for any reason, nevertheless, in the course of time, through the rashness and audacity of printers and others, many errors have crept into the missals printed in recent years... Considering these innovations, guided by Our pastoral concern, which impels Us to zealously protect and preserve the best, ancient norm in everything, especially in the sacred rites of the Church, We have ordered, first of all, that the above-mentioned printed Missals, thus corrupted, be prohibited and declared invalid, and that their use in the celebration of Mass be prohibited unless they are completely and completely corrected in accordance with the original text published by Pius...
However, in carrying out the above task, as a result of a careful comparison of ancient books, certain things have been improved, and, in the matter of rules and rubrics, certain points have been expressed more fully and clearly. These improvements, however, stemming from the same sources and principles, seem to present and fulfill the meaning of the rules and rubrics rather than to introduce any new thing. We have therefore decreed that the Missal which the same Pius V edited, having undergone such a revision, be printed as flawlessly as possible by our Vatican printing office and be published for the general benefit of all, so that its use may be preserved in all future times, in every part of the Christian world."
Urban VIII in Si Quid est wrote:
"... if among man's possessions there is any divine thing that would be enviable to the inhabitants of Heaven (if they were capable of succumbing to such a passion), it is undoubtedly the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, through which men, having before their eyes and taking into their hands the very Creator of Heaven and earth, experience, while remaining on earth, a foretaste of Heaven. How diligently, then, must mortals strive to preserve and protect this priceless privilege with all due worship and reverence. May they always guard it, lest their negligence offend the angels who compete with them in fervent adoration! With this in mind, following in the footsteps of Our Supreme Pontiffs, Our Predecessors Pius V and Clement V, who most carefully revised and restored the rite and prayers constituting the celebration of this holy Mystery, We have ordered that they be re-examined and, if by chance, as often happens, anything has become corrupted with the passage of time, it be restored to its former form... The rubrics, which had gradually become corrupted due to ancient customs, and the rite itself have been restored to their earlier form..."
I hope the above helps to understand how Catholic Popes with reverence treated the Roman Rite of the Holy Mass (not to be mistaken with Bugnini-Montini's Novus Ordo rite)

@V.R.S. Thank you for your honest serious response. You have honestly admitted to the fact that the 1570 Missal was NOT verbatim "in perpetuity." We have established the fact that subsequent Popes had and have the Authority to revise the Roman Rite. Now, can subordinate Catholics hold personal private opinions whether these Popes' changes to the Roman Rite were proper or good changes? Sure. But, can a subordinate Catholic righteously make a definitive judgement regarding a Pope's revision of the Roman Rite, to the point of rebellion and schism? Absolutely not. Furthermore, if one believes it is righteous to rebel and schism against the 1970 Missal, which Missal does the rebel fall back to? 1570? Would not this be the "Pure TLM.?"