CathInfo.com

The pope is not the creator of universal custom.  He is the material cause by which it is given to the universal Church.

The fact that from one day to the next, the genuflection during the Creed was not part of the liturgy and then it was, shows it's not "universal" at all, but an addition.  So, if it's not a universal custom (and many things aren't), then the pope can get rid of it (in theory).

Pope St. Pius V established the term of 200 years for the determination of immemorial custom.  He made no attempt to suppress such customs because he had no right to do so.  What could not demonstrate a custom of 200 years was considered a novelty and not subject to the Church laws regarding the standing of custom.

Why 200 years and not 201 or 250 or 256?  Who determines what is a novelty and what isn't?  The pope.  Therefore, we can conclude that the pope can make such decisions about the liturgy.  Unless you're saying he had a vision and God told him directly?
Why did the pope have a right to suppress less than 200 years but not greater than 200 year old rites?  Is there a manual or rule regarding this, or did the pope use his pontifical authority to decide?  Of course, he used his authority; therefore any pope AFTER St Pius V can also use that authority, in regards to rubrics and non-essential matters.

You believe that the pope can end any immemorial custom because they are of mere ecclesiastical faith and therefore a matter of mere church discipline.  The pope becomes your proximate rule of faith but that honor belongs to dogma.

You're inserting an argument about dogma when I'm talking about human, church law.  Dogma is of Divine origin; many church laws are not, thus they can be changed.

If you re-read the quote previously provided from Msgr. Gamber, you will learn the Roman "received and approved" rite is and has always been regarded as a matter of Apostolic Tradition.  The implications of this explains why the "received and approved" rites are a formal object of Catholic dogma.  Remember, only objects of divine faith can be objects of dogma.

The 1962 missal did not make any changes that relate to dogma or Apostolic Tradition; neither did St Pius V's missal, or Leo XIII's missal, or St Pius X's or Pius XII's.  The "received and approved" rites (from Christ/Apostles) are the ESSENCE of the Mass but the historical liturgical additions of the Church over centuries can be changed, have been changed and do not affect the Mass' purpose and substance.

The only claim that you can make to Quo Primum from this liturgical reform is that it the docuмent is included in the preface of the Missal. 

Wrong.  I pasted the legal wording wherein St Pius X's missal (Divina Afflatu) was made illicit and replaced by John XXIII's new missal.  Accept it or not, it's a legal fact.

You cannot use SP to prove the 1962 Missal has not been abrogated and refuse to accept SP's teaching that the Novus Ordo and the 1962 Missal are one and the same rite. 

The proof regarding the 62 missal's ties to Quo Primum are in the docuмent itself and also in the 1984 Commission which studied the issue at the request of JPII.  The only thing which SP did was corroborate a legal fact that most Bishops of the world had lied about.  Secondly, SP never said they are "one and the same rite".  It said they are "two usages of the same rite" which is quite a different meaning. 

Further, this isn't a "teaching"; it's a legal fact.  (A motu proprio isn't a teaching docuмent but a legal one).  There are 2 rites of latin church - the 62 missal and the 69 missal.  The question is, which rite MUST a catholic use/attend?  By law, by papal command, and by papal authority, the only missal that is allowed to be used is Quo Primum's, which is the 62 missal.  The 69 missal exists, legally, but Quo Primum FORBIDS the use of any other missal (under penalty of sin).  Ergo, the 69 missal is illegal and sinful to use, even if it legally exists. 

Example:  It's not a sin to cook a steak on Good Friday and place it on the dinner table.  You just can't eat it.  In the same way, the modernists found a loophole in Quo Primum which allowed them to create a new missal but the USE of this missal is forbidden.  The law which created the 69 missal (and any post-V2 liturgical law or indult) NEVER says that one has to accept/attend the new mass and it NEVER says you have to accept the terms of the meaningless indult laws...the modernists used trickery and deceit to confuse people.  But the law is clear and the law of Quo Primum still stands.

The truth of the matter there is no such thing as the 1962 Missal or the 1965 Missal.

I guess all those 62 missals for sale are a figment of everyone's imagination.

You do not know what if fact is the "typical" edition of the 1962 Missal referred to in SP that was never "abrogated". 

Go online and buy a 62 missal.  It exists.

"they are two usages of the one Roman rite." If the 1969 Misssal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite and it IS the same rite as the 1962 Missal then, the 1962 Missal IS NOT the "received and approved" rite. 

The 69 missal is a parallel rite, which is not in any way connected with Tradition, or Quo Primum, and it doesn't claim to be (neither in its docuмents, nor by Paul VI himself).  It originated because of, and was created through, Vatican 2.

The 62 missal CLEARLY outlaws the previous missal of Quo Primum (which was St Pius X's) and CLEARLY makes its changes the newest version of St Pius V's missal, which changes are minor and non-essential (in regards to the mass).  Most of the changes were to the calendar.

You must also accept that John Paul II Quattuor Abhinc Annos, as "a legal docuмent, ergo whatever the pope expresses in it is a legal act or ruling on a topic," made the 1962 Missal an Indult which is the permission to do something the is normally "illegal."  JP II presupposes that the 1962 Missal is no longer "legal" most likely because it had been obrogated by continual revisions implementing the Bugnini reforms.  This may be the reason that the Italian episcopate have suppressed SP illegal and wants Rome to revoke it.

  
Whenever a law is passed, those who are affected by the law have a right to read it, understand it and see what it commands.  JPII's indult law commands no one to ask permission for the mass, it has no penalties if people ignore the indult, nor does it force anyone to accept the novus ordo or Vatican 2.  The indult laws, if anything, apply to the bishops and force them to allow the True Mass because beforehand, for the period of 20 years from 69 to 86, the Bishops had lied to everyone and said that the True Mass was gone, outlawed and never coming back.  The indult laws only affect those who want to go to mass in a diocesan church or one "under rome".  It doesn't affect the PERMANENT indult granted by Quo Primum to any and all Catholics and it never claims to.  The legal truth is the True Mass has never and can never be outlawed; in PRACTICAL terms (for those catholics outside of Tradition) it was outlawed, in the sense that the Bishops did not allow it in their dioceses.  But Rome and the papacy HAD NEVER OUTLAWED THE TRUE MASS (i.e. the 62 missal) and no where does JPII's indult say that and Benedict's SP motu confirms it.

The reform of Pius V suppressed customs and imposed a liturgy by authority;

Pope Pius V says it right there, in Quo Primum. Notice the word "new"

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom.

The Tridentine Mass was a new liturgical rite to be used following the Council of Trent.  Pope Pius V, in his full capacity as Supreme Pontiff, promulgated a new Liturgical Rite, the Tridentine Mass, which differs from the pre-Tridentine Mass, although the substance remains intact. He also revised and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. Yes, popes can do that! Otherwise, as Pax said, the only “received and approved” rite would be the Aramaic rite directly from Christ.  

It is useless to argue petty legalisms as to when the Bugnini reforms constituted a formal break.

In Our Lord’s day, the Scribes and Pharisees ruled the people using “petty legalisms”.  The Modernists do the same.  This is precisely the world in which Satan, and his minions, operate - the “letter of the law”, which Christ tells us “kills”.  As the old saying goes “the devil’s in the details”, which in our situation means that we have to “read the fine print” of these legal docuмents, and we have to be “wise as serpents” when dealing with what these Modernists do.  Most of the time, their “laws” are not obligatory at all, but only appear so, until you examine them and find the “trick” used to deceive - that is, magic - another favorite devilish practice - things appear different than what they really are.