CathInfo.com

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.  

Doesn’t matter.  

(1) Both these prayers were not from Christ, therefore they aren’t part of the Divine/doctrinal part of the mass, which is the ONLY part that can’t be changed.

The canon prayers were not part of Church tradition until the 400s with pope St Gregory the great (and this only for the Latin rite...not sure if other rites have an old Canon).  

(2) they were added/created by the Church and an earlier pope, so  they are part of the human/changeable part of the liturgy.  A pope has the power to change human laws, however old.

(3) These changes do not affect the doctrine/theology/substance of the mass, either in its sacrificial nature or its purpose as the greatest prayer to God.

Not only are you “making a mountain out of a molehill” but you are making yourself a judge of the Pope, since you’re claiming that John XXIII doesn’t have the power to chnage what another pope added.  Hogwash.

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.)

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.

One sees disagreement over ideas with the Benedictine's view that the Octave (of Pentecost) be retained but with the others agreeing it should be abolished. The 1948 Commission took the decision to abolish the Octave of Pentecost at its seventh meeting on February 14th, 1950. (Vide: Bugnini, 'Reform..', p.320 & Giampietro, 'Antonelli..', p. 289) although this was not to happen in practice for two decades being dependent on working out the lectionary etc. for 'Ordinary Time'.  
Rubricarius, St. Lawrence Press

   "However, the term disciplina in no way applies to the liturgical rite of the Mass, particularly in light of the fact that the popes have repeatedly observed that the rite is founded on apostolic tradition (several popes are then quoted in the footnote). For this reason alone, the rite cannot fall into the category of 'discipline and rule of the Church.'  To this we can add that there is not a single docuмent, including the Codex Iuris Canonici, in which there is a specific statement that the pope, in his function as the supreme pastor of the Church, has the authority to abolish the traditional rite.  In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition.  The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.
     "There are clearly defined limits to the plena et suprema potestas (full and highest powers) of the pope.  For example, there is no question that, even in matters of dogma, he still has to follow the tradition of the universal Church-that is, as St. Vincent of Lerins says, what has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ominibus). In fact, there are several authors who state quite explicitly that it is clearly outside the pope's scope of authority to abolish the traditional rite."
Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy