CathInfo.com

Therefore you accept all of Bugnini’s changes until 1962 and reject the Bugnini changes after 1962 because you regard them as harmful.  

No, I accept the 62 missal because IT IS A LEGAL REVISION OF QUO PRIMUM.  Regardless of the intention of the changes, regardless of the goal of the changes, regardless of who envisioned the changes, the changes themselves WERE NOT SUBSTANTIVE alterations of the St Pius V missal.  Therefore, the revisions are “approved and received” because in non-doctrinal changes, the pope has authority to chnage the liturgy.  In non-essential matters, yes, the liturgy is a matter of discipline because a lot of the Church’s liturgy is of human origin and development.  

The changes post 62 don’t have to be accepted because 1) they were not legally part of a revision of Quo Primum, and the docuмents never claimed they were. 2) the changes, therefore, lack the binding and authoritative legal elements that Quo Primum clearly expressed, and 3) Neither John XXIII or Paul VI ever commanded these changes to be accepted by all the Church, under pain of sin (unlike the 62 changes, which are enforced by Quo Primum’s strict regulations.)

Those who attend the Latin Mass in the 1962 Bugnini transitional edition accept it as a grant of legal privilege and in doing this they will have no legal or even moral argument when it is taken away, or revised in the "reform of the reform" to incorporate the celebrations of Novus Ordo saints, three years liturgical calendar, vernacular usage, etc.

I’ll quote what I already said before.  Please read this slowly and study the legal docuмents.

Pope John XXIII's law of 1962 is a revision of St Pius V's missal.  It precedes the Ecclesia Dei by over 20 years and "S.P." by 40 years.

The indult laws of the 80s and 2007 are null and void because they seek to limit the permissions and commands of Quo Primum, which are legally in force “in perpetuity”.  No post 1962 law/pope has EVER revised or ended the law of Quo Primum, as Benedict XVI admitted in his “motu”.  Thus, no Catholic must follow the indults (which are legal word games with no substance or penalty for ignoring them), or needs permission for the TLM because Quo Primum grants a perpetual indult/permission which is based on both doctrine and discipline and is legally binding under pain of sin.

Drew, you also keep repeating that the heretical intentions of Bugnini make his (minor) changes in 62 also heretical.  This makes no sense.  

If a heretic or atheist’s evil intentions don’t affect their administration of baptism and which is valid so long as the process is followed then the evil intentions of Bugnini don’t affect his changes of the liturgy so long as the changes were minor (ie not affecting doctrine or theology) and the pope approved them legally.  

Without the Pope as supreme authority on these matters, such immemorial "received and approved" rite of Mass in the Roman rite would probably be the pre-Tridentine Mass,

Good point, except the pre-Tridentine mass was revised multiple times by Pope St Gregory in the 400s, so his changes would be null as well.  Then in the 200s and 300s you had the development of the Greek, Syrian, Coptic, Byzantine and Latin rites and these would all have to be rejected too, since if the pope can’t make changes then the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.