CathInfo.com

All the changes you mentioned in the 62 missal are non-essential changes, which the pope can make and permit.  The pope is only prevented from making substantial changes to the Mass.  If you accept that John XXIII was pope, then the 1962 missal was legally authorized and acceptable.

The 1962 missal IS regulated by Human Law: Summorum Pontificuм, Ecclessiae Universae and all the changes have been authorized though these Motu Proprios to bring the 1962 missal back to the Novus ordo while still calling it "the 1962 missal". 

The 1962 missal is regulated by Quo Primum, which makes the additional laws of Ecclessiae Dei and Summorum Pontificuм irrelevant.

Don't take my word, read the docuмents and that is why Rome will be giving only the SSPX and exemption to keep (temporarily) the 1962 missal to force the indult communities who don't want the "new 1962 missal" coming soon, to join the SSPX. 

Rome's reasons for "why" they want the 1962 missal to be used are irrelevant.  The 62 missal is the ONLY missal that ANY catholic is allowed (and commanded) to be used because this is order of law from Quo Primum.  A future pope can legally change the 62 missal back to the pure liturgy but until that happens, we are stuck with it.  Even though it is not perfect, it is substantially pure because only its "trimmings" are defective, not its essence.

The purpose of Summorum Pontificuм was not to "liberate" the 1962 missal but to give it (as a priest stated) its proper burial. Its the most restrictive of indults because for the first time we have to accept the Novus Ordo in order to have the right to use it and accept the N.O. as the "Ordinary Form" while the 1962 Bugnini version is the "Extraordinary Form".

Yes, I agree this was the purpose of both indults (the 80s and Benedict's) but these indult laws are illegal, because they attempt to restrict that which Quo Primum does not allow to be restricted.  Quo Primum is like the Constitution of the US and these indult laws are like a local law passed by a city.  The Constitution overrules a city law and such local laws are null and void.  Just like with everything post-V2, new-rome cares not if their laws are legal or binding - they only care if the people *think* such laws are legal/binding.  New-rome only cares about the end result - which both indults have accomplished - that most catholics stay away from Tradition under the false idea that we are disobedient and extremists, even though the law is surely on our side, both Divine Law and Church law.

You are arguing that the 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal is the "received and approved" Roman rite and therefore the treating of it as an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege is itself  "illegal".  You may be right but I do not think so and, more importantly, neither does Rome.

Yes, Rome does think that, and admitted it, though indirectly.  In the 2007 "motu", Pope Benedict said that (paraphrasing) - the law which created the 1962 missal (i.e. Quo Primum) was never abrogated, therefore the old rite (i.e. True Mass) was always permitted (i.e. the "indult laws" which implied that the True Mass was outlawed and thus the indult law was necessary to "bring it back" are illegal).

This is the same conclusion reached by a commission in the early 80s, as ordered by JPII, who wanted to know if, legally speaking, the True Mass was outlawed by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution which created the new mass.  Result - the commission said that Paul VI's law did not outlaw the 1962 missal.  Therefore, by extension, it means that Quo Primum is still in force.

The only people who consistantly argued that the "old mass" was outlawed, banned and replaced were the bishops/cardinals, who do not have any legal standing or ability to legally rule on this question.  Rome has consistantly and officially said that Quo Primum is still in force, though they said it indirectly (because they don't want to draw attention to Quo Primum), by admitting that the 1962 missal is valid.

The 1962 Missal is not the "received and approved" Roman rite and the proof of this is in the fact that Rome has never treated the 1962 Missal as the "received and approved" rite reducing it an Indult and/or grant of legal privilege.

Not true.  See above.  The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.

There is a wealth of evidence that liturgy is not and has never been a matter of mere discipline.

I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline.  But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).

The liturgical changes in the 1962 Missal are significant.  Once it is understood that the liturgical changes overseen by Bugnini are a variation of the heresy of Iconoclasm, the damage done to the faith in the 1962 Missal becomes more evident.  Such changes as the removal of St. Peter's Chair at Rome, the removal of saints because their only evidence were miracles, or the removal of liturgical celebrations grounded upon miracles, such as the finding of the body of St. Stephen, St. John before the Latin Gate, etc., destruction of most octaves and vigils, that addition of a non-martyr to the canon (St. Joseph), and all the Holy Week changes from 1956 that embodied numerous changes seen in 1969 Novus Ordo Missal.  Iconoclasm was manifested by 1962.

The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally.  Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed.  The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY.  They are not a denial of the Faith.  They are not a new theology.  Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
Were there seeds planted which eventually sprouted into heresies in 1969?  Yes.  But such seeds of 62 are not a denial/change/subversion to an extreme degree.

Yes, Rome does think that, and admitted it, though indirectly.  In the 2007 "motu", Pope Benedict said that (paraphrasing) - the law which created the 1962 missal (i.e. Quo Primum) was never abrogated, therefore the old rite (i.e. True Mass) was always permitted (i.e. the "indult laws" which implied that the True Mass was outlawed and thus the indult law was necessary to "bring it back" are illegal).

This is the same conclusion reached by a commission in the early 80s, as ordered by JPII, who wanted to know if, legally speaking, the True Mass was outlawed by Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution which created the new mass.  Result - the commission said that Paul VI's law did not outlaw the 1962 missal.  Therefore, by extension, it means that Quo Primum is still in force.

The only people who consistantly argued that the "old mass" was outlawed, banned and replaced were the bishops/cardinals, who do not have any legal standing or ability to legally rule on this question.  Rome has consistantly and officially said that Quo Primum is still in force, though they said it indirectly (because they don't want to draw attention to Quo Primum), by admitting that the 1962 missal is valid.
Not true.  See above.  The 62 missal requires no indult, as Pope Benedict admitted.
I agree, it is not just a matter of discipline.  But the 62 missal is essentially the same as the 1955 missal and the same as Pius V's 1500s missal, going all the way back to Pope Gregory the Great's missal of the 400s, therefore its revisions are allowed to be made by a valid pope and are not contrary to the Faith (even if many of the changes are not promoting piety or religious ferver).
The changes may be significant, from a historical perspective, but are not ESSENTIAL changes, theologically or doctrinally.  Getting rid of a feast day or an octave is not a denial that the saint existed.  The changes to the 62 missal do NOT affect doctrine or dogma ESSENTIALLY.  They are not a denial of the Faith.  They are not a new theology.  Not in the same degree as the novus ordo of 69, which is totally anti-Trent.
Were there seeds planted which eventually sprouted into heresies in 1969?  Yes.  But such seeds of 62 are not a denial/change/subversion to an extreme degree.

The immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass cannot be abrogated.  Any discussion as whether or not it has been done presupposes that it can be done. Therefore, it is already treating the 1962 Missal as a matter of mere discipline which cannot be done to the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite.  What is worse, it presupposes that Quo Primum (QP) is therefore merely a disciplinary docuмent which it most certainly is not.  But to understand the status of QP you must first understand dogma.  QP appeals to dogmas of Trent in its introduction from which all its arguments flow.

But the whole purpose of Summorum Pontificuм (SP) was not to "free" the Missal but to restructure the "reform of the reform."  Those who accepted the "freeing" of the 1962 Missal from SP also accepted the legitimacy of the entire liturgical reform in principle and acknowledged that the 1962 Missal and the 1969 Missal were two forms of one rite as necessary conditions for its use.  This last claim is in fact true since both were products of Bugnini's reform principles.

By the way, after Benedict published SP he then revoked additional liturgical reform docuмents specifically the two that brought about the 1965 changes.  The whole thing was therefore a legal scam and the Italian Episcopate may have a valid legal argument.  

You are currently witnessing the revoking of Ecclesia Dei and the Italian Episcopal conference declaring SP illegal.  The argument you are making is not built upon anything more stable than legal opinion.  Even if I were to grant your claim that Benedict was correct and JPII was in error by treating the 1962 Missal as Indult, it makes no difference.  Benedict treated it as a grant of legal privilege.  In fact, SP imposed new requirements on the use of the 1962 Missal that did not exist before.  All those using the 1962 Missal have at least implicitly accepted all these conditions.  It really makes no difference between the two because a "received and approved" immemorial rite grounded upon dogma can no more be a grant of legal privilege than can it be an Indult.  Either way, it reduces the Missal to matter of mere discipline.  As I said in the previous post, Rome has treated the 1962 Missal as a matter of mere discipline from 1962 until this present day without exception.  

A lengthy book could easily be written on the changes in the 1962 Missal and the damage they have done to the faith.  The primary damage is most certainly the relegation of the Missal to a matter of mere discipline.  Still, whether or not the 1962 Missal is the "received and approved" immemorial Roman rite would be moot because it can only be proved by competent authority.  Since "competent authority" is not accessible you and others who adopt the 1962 Missal have taken a position that is liturgically and legally indefensible at this time.

In York PA the local ordinary offered us to become an Indult community.  It was refused because as said to him more than ten years ago, what is granted by an indult or legal privilege cannot be claimed by right and can be revoked by the free and independent will of the legislator.  The bishop was told that if in the future Rome should declare that the 1962 Missal is the "received and approved" rite of Mass in its normative form than that is the Missal we would use.  Until that time, we use a Missal that is unquestionably the "received and approved" rite without any doubt whatsoever.

The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal that existed less than two years and was never at any time regarded as a stable liturgical form did tremendous damage to worship and consequently to the faith.  It was not Bugnini's first or last liturgical Iconoclasm but that is what the 1962 Missal is, liturgical Iconoclasm.  It may have been an incomplete Iconoclasm that did not perhaps shatter the image but it did in fact horribly mutilate it.

Aristotle said that the purpose of dialogue was to arrive at opinion.  The Vatican II church, the church of the New Advent, could be called the Church of Dialogue.  Opinion has replaced dogmatic truth.  Unfortunately for Catholics faithful to tradition Bishop Fellay entered not into "doctrinal discussions" with Rome but dialogue with the Church of the New Advent.  Trying to defend the 1962 Missal as the immemorial Roman rite will just be another round of dialogue and empty opinions that will make any concerted defense of true worship impossible.

Drew